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
Update your commercial security agreement template to include a clause requiring the debtor to warrant their exact legal name and provide current organizational documents. Puts the burden on them to get it right and gives you recourse if they mess it up.
That's a really good idea. Adding that to our standard template revisions. Would also help with other UCC-related warranties and representations.
We added similar language to our docs after getting burned a few times. Now we require certified copies of current organizational docs with every secured transaction. Pain upfront but eliminates these headaches.
Just wanted to mention that I've started using Certana.ai's verification tool for exactly these situations. Upload your security agreement and UCC-1 together and it catches name mismatches before you file. Wish I'd known about it sooner - would have saved me from several rejection notices over the years.
How accurate is it? I'm always skeptical of automated tools for legal document review.
It's pretty solid for basic consistency checks like debtor names, filing numbers, and standard UCC requirements. Obviously not a replacement for legal review but great for catching obvious errors that cause rejections.
Join the conversation
Wisconsin DFI really needs to modernize their system. Other states have fuzzy matching that catches obvious variations but Wisconsin is stuck in the stone age with exact character matching.
Agreed. California's system is so much more user-friendly. Wisconsin acts like computers can't figure out that 'LLC' and 'L.L.C.' are the same thing.
Exactly! In 2025 we shouldn't be getting rejections over comma placement. Their whole system needs an overhaul.
Quick update strategy for your situation: pull the exact name from Wisconsin DFI today, amend your security agreement to match, then refile the UCC-1. Should clear up the discrepancy. Also consider using one of those document checking tools to verify everything matches before submitting.
Good plan. Wisconsin can be tricky but once you get the name exactly right the filing should go through smoothly. Keep copies of everything for your file.
And double-check that Wisconsin DFI UCC search one more time right before you refile - occasionally they update their records and the name format can change.
Join the conversation
Update: Got the filing accepted! Turns out it was exactly the comma issue. Used the exact name from the articles including the comma and it went through immediately. UCC 9 503 doesn't give you any wiggle room on debtor names.
Congrats on getting it through. Did you make your closing deadline?
Just barely! Had to rush the final loan docs but we made it. Definitely learned my lesson about double-checking debtor names against the charter.
This whole thread is a good reminder to be extra careful with UCC 9 503 debtor name requirements. I'm definitely going to start using that document checker tool to avoid these headaches.
Smart move. Prevention is way better than dealing with rejections and delays.
Especially when you have tight closing deadlines. UCC 9-503 compliance issues can really mess up your timeline.
Join the conversation
Pro tip: always search both the debtor's current legal name AND any former names. Corporate name changes create gaps in search results that can hide active liens. I keep a spreadsheet of all name variations for each client.
Absolutely. M&A activity is one of the biggest sources of UCC search complications. Names change, entities merge, and the filing records don't always connect properly.
This is why UCC searches for M&A deals take forever. So many potential name variations to check.
Been doing UCC searches for 15 years and the inconsistency between systems is still my biggest frustration. Best practice is to use at least 2-3 different search platforms and then manually reconcile the results. Time consuming but necessary for thoroughness.
Exactly. One missed lien can torpedo an entire deal and cost way more than the extra search time.
This is where tools like Certana.ai really help - automates that reconciliation process instead of doing it manually.
Axel Far
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm curious to hear what the actual issue was. These document number problems are so common but the solutions are always different.
0 coins
Savannah Weiner
•Will do. I'm going to call the filing office first thing tomorrow morning and hopefully get some answers.
0 coins
Jasmine Hernandez
•Good luck! The phone support is usually much more helpful than trying to figure it out through the online system.
0 coins
Luis Johnson
Just a thought - have you tried using the exact formatting from the original UCC-1 filing itself rather than the receipt? Sometimes the receipt formatting is different from what's actually in the system.
0 coins
Ellie Kim
•Yes, definitely get a copy of the actual filed document. The receipt is just a confirmation - the real document might have different formatting or additional information you need.
0 coins
Hunter Hampton
•This is another reason why that Certana.ai verification tool is so helpful. It can work with filing receipts, original documents, whatever you have. Takes the guesswork out of matching document numbers and formatting.
0 coins