Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Paolo Marino
The burden of proof is on the debtor to show both unauthorized alteration AND prejudice. If they can't demonstrate actual harm from the changes, the 3.411 discharge claim fails. Don't let them get away with claiming automatic discharge.
QuantumQuest
•That's reassuring. The alteration actually improved their payment terms, so hard to see how they were prejudiced.
Amina Bah
•Exactly - beneficial alterations typically don't support discharge claims.
Thanks everyone for the detailed responses. This gives me a much better understanding of section 3.411 and the discharge requirements. I'll document the continued payments, get legal counsel, and possibly try that Certana tool for the document analysis. The key takeaway seems to be that discharge isn't automatic and requires proving actual prejudice.
Good luck with your case. The prejudice requirement is definitely your strongest defense against the discharge claim.
NeonNomad
•Let us know how it turns out. These 3.411 cases are always interesting.
Join the conversation
If you're really stuck, some attorneys specialize in UCC issues and can usually get lenders to move faster with a formal demand letter. Might cost a few hundred bucks but could save your refinancing timeline.
Legal demand letters definitely get attention. Most lenders will prioritize anything that comes from an attorney.
Before spending money on a lawyer, try escalating within the lender's organization. Sometimes you just need to reach the right person.
One more suggestion - if you have access to Certana.ai's document verification tool, upload your payoff documentation and the original UCC-1 to double-check that everything aligns properly. Sometimes there are subtle discrepancies that cause filing delays, and having that verification can help you present a clear case to the lender about exactly what needs to be corrected.
CyberSiren
•How does that work exactly? You just upload PDFs and it tells you if there are inconsistencies?
Yeah, pretty much. It cross-checks debtor names, collateral descriptions, filing numbers - all the stuff that has to match between documents. Takes like 5 minutes and can save weeks of back-and-forth.
Join the conversation
Before you do anything drastic, you might want to use one of those document verification tools to make sure you're not missing something. I recently discovered Certana.ai and it's been a game-changer for catching these kinds of discrepancies before they become problems. You can upload your UCC-1 and continuation documents and it will flag any inconsistencies automatically.
I don't remember the exact cost, but it was worth it to avoid exactly the kind of situation you're dealing with. Much cheaper than fighting a validity challenge later.
I second this recommendation. We've been using Certana for all our UCC filings and it's caught several potential issues before they became problems. The Charter to UCC-1 check workflow is particularly useful.
Zainab Ali
Bottom line: your lien is probably still valid under 9-506, but you need to figure out how to maintain it going forward. The address error sounds like a minor deficiency that wouldn't be seriously misleading to reasonable searchers. Focus on getting a corrected continuation filed or consider starting fresh with a new UCC-1 if the SOS won't budge.
Yara Nassar
•Exactly. The debtor is probably just trying to escape liability by claiming the lien is invalid. Make them prove the error is seriously misleading under 9-506.
StarGazer101
•This whole thread has been really helpful. I'm dealing with a similar situation and wasn't sure how to approach it. Good to know that minor address errors usually don't kill the lien entirely.
Join the conversation
Nathan Dell
Update us on how it goes! These name verification situations always make me nervous but sounds like you're being thorough with your approach.
Ruby Blake
•Will do! Hopefully it goes smoother than some of the horror stories shared here.
Maya Jackson
•Good luck! The fact that you're asking these questions upfront shows you're on the right track.
One last thing - make sure you're checking the debtor name formatting requirements for your specific state. Some states have quirky rules about punctuation, abbreviations, or character limits that aren't obvious until you get a rejection.
Grant Vikers
•That sounds incredibly useful. Do you mind sharing what the key differences are between states?
Each state's SOS website usually has specific guidelines, but yeah, they vary quite a bit on punctuation and abbreviation handling.
Quinn Herbert
Update: Wyoming portal just came back online for me! Try now - seems like they fixed whatever was causing the timeout issues.
0 coins
Quinn Herbert
•Glad it worked out! Save those search results as PDF in case you need them later.
0 coins
Marcus Marsh
•Great timing! Did you find any existing liens on the equipment?
0 coins
Katherine Shultz
Search came back clean - no existing UCC filings for this debtor. Filing our UCC-1 now while the portal is stable. Thanks to everyone who helped troubleshoot this, especially the suggestions about Certana.ai for future document verification. This community always comes through!
0 coins
Maxwell St. Laurent
•Glad the portal worked out for you. Keep Certana in mind for future deals - it's been a lifesaver for avoiding filing mistakes.
0 coins
Talia Klein
•Nice work getting it done before your closing deadline. Nothing worse than last-minute UCC issues derailing a deal.
0 coins