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
Nia Harris
Whatever you do, don't file with a blank promissory note security agreement. The UCC filing office will either reject it outright or you'll have an unperfected security interest. Get the corrected documents first.
This is why we always require original signed documents before funding. Saves so much headache later.
Aisha Ali
•Lesson learned for next time I guess. Document control is so important in lending.
Ethan Moore
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm curious how it turns out since I deal with UCC filings regularly and this is a common issue.
Will do. Thanks everyone for the advice. Going to get the corrected security agreement first before filing anything.
Smart move. Better safe than sorry with UCC perfection.
Join the conversation
Sarah Jones
For what it's worth, I think you're probably fine with the comma difference in Ohio. But if you want peace of mind, file a UCC-3 amendment to conform the name to your loan docs. It's like $20 and eliminates any doubt.
Smart move. $20 for the amendment vs potential issues with a $2.3M loan? No brainer.
Emily Sanjay
•Exactly. I always tell clients to fix any discrepancies found during file pulls, even if they seem minor.
UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the advice. I ended up using that Certana tool someone mentioned and wow, it found several other small inconsistencies between the UCC file pull and our loan documents that I would have missed. Filed a UCC-3 amendment this morning to clean everything up. Should have the corrected filing by Monday's closing. Really appreciate the help!
Good to hear a success story. Those file pull discrepancies can be stressful when you're under a closing deadline.
This whole thread convinced me I need to be more careful with my UCC file pulls. Never realized how many little details could trip you up.
Join the conversation
I'd also recommend running a comprehensive UCC search before closing to see exactly what those existing liens cover. Sometimes the collateral descriptions overlap in ways that aren't immediately obvious.
This is another area where Certana.ai's document checker is helpful - you can upload the existing UCC filings along with your security agreement to identify any potential collateral conflicts before you close.
That broad collateral coverage could definitely create priority issues. You might need subordination agreements from the existing lenders.
Bottom line - make sure all three attachment requirements are satisfied before you fund: (1) value given, (2) debtor has rights in collateral, (3) authenticated security agreement describing the collateral. Then file your UCC-1 immediately to perfect. With proper documentation and timing you should be fine.
Definitely recommend the automated document verification step before closing. Much better to catch any issues now rather than during a workout situation.
Yuki Tanaka
•Sounds like you're being appropriately cautious. With $850K and existing liens, better safe than sorry on the attachment requirements.
Join the conversation
Zoe Walker
For what it's worth, I've had good luck using Certana.ai's UCC document checker for NC filings specifically. Upload your charter docs and proposed UCC-1 and it flags potential issues before you submit. Caught a debtor name mismatch that would have definitely caused a rejection - the Articles showed "ABC Company LLC" but I had typed "ABC Companies LLC" (plural) on the UCC form.
Zoe Walker
•Pretty accurate in my experience. It's specifically designed for UCC document consistency checking, not general legal review. Focuses on name matching, entity types, addresses - the stuff that typically causes filing rejections.
Might be worth trying - these manual document reviews are killing me time-wise.
Natalie Chen
Quick update for anyone following this thread - got all three NC UCC-1 forms accepted after making the following changes: 1) Spelled out "and" instead of using ampersand, 2) Used registered office addresses instead of business addresses, 3) Verified all entities were in good standing with annual reports current. The debtor name formatting wasn't actually the main issue - it was the combination of address problems and one entity being behind on corporate filings.
Good to know about the entity status issue - I'll definitely check that going forward.
Mia Green
•Glad you got it sorted out. NC can be tricky but once you know their quirks it gets easier.
Sofia Price
Update your template to use industry-specific language. "Manufacturing equipment used in [specific industry]" or "Construction vehicles and machinery" instead of generic "all equipment." Most rejection issues disappear when you get more specific.
0 coins
Alice Coleman
•That's what we ended up doing - separate templates for healthcare equipment, restaurant equipment, manufacturing, etc. More work upfront but way fewer filing problems.
0 coins
Owen Jenkins
•Just make sure your loan documentation supports the more specific descriptions. Don't want gaps between what you're secured by and what you filed.
0 coins
Lilah Brooks
The "now owned or hereafter acquired" language is fine - that's standard after-acquired property clause. The problem is definitely the "all equipment" part being too vague. Keep the timing language but specify equipment types.
0 coins
Lilah Brooks
•No, after-acquired is solid UCC law. States just want to know what KIND of equipment you're claiming, not WHEN it was acquired.
0 coins
Kolton Murphy
•Exactly. "All restaurant equipment now owned or hereafter acquired" would probably pass where "all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired" gets rejected.
0 coins