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
Raul Neal
One more thing to consider - make sure you know whether your lender wants to be listed as the secured party or if they're assigning that to someone else like a loan servicer. I've seen UCC-1s get rejected because the wrong entity was listed as the secured party.
Raul Neal
•Definitely confirm before filing. It's one of those details that's easy to get wrong and can cause headaches later.
Jenna Sloan
•This is why I always get a draft UCC-1 from the lender rather than trying to prepare it myself. Let them tell you exactly how they want it filled out.
UPDATE: I ended up using Certana.ai to verify my UCC-1 before submitting and it caught two issues - a slight variation in our company name and a collateral description that was too vague. Fixed both problems and the filing was accepted without any issues. Thanks everyone for the help!
Good to hear a success story. How long did it take for Ohio SOS to process your filing?
It was processed within 24 hours. Pretty quick turnaround for Ohio.
Join the conversation
PrinceJoe
Try searching with different punctuation too. Sometimes the system treats 'LLC' different from 'L.L.C.' or 'Inc' vs 'Inc.' in debtor names.
Sophie Duck
•Yes! And sometimes they index 'The' at the beginning of company names differently too.
The punctuation thing is so annoying. Why can't the search be smart enough to handle common variations?
Thanks for posting this - I thought I was going crazy with inconsistent Orange County search results. At least now I know it's not just me!
Glad I'm not the only one dealing with this! It's reassuring to know other people are seeing the same issues.
Anita George
•Yeah, this thread has been really helpful. I'm going to change how I do my searches going forward.
Join the conversation
Riya Sharma
Try calling Indiana SOS directly. Sometimes they can tell you exactly what's causing the mismatch over the phone.
Daniel Price
•Good idea. I was hoping to avoid the phone call but might be my best option at this point.
Their phone support is actually pretty helpful for UCC issues. Much better than trying to guess what's wrong.
Millie Long
Update: Found the issue! There was indeed an extra space at the end of the debtor name in the original filing. Used one of those document comparison tools mentioned here to spot it. Filed the continuation with the exact spacing and it went through immediately. Thanks everyone!
Awesome! This is exactly why I always recommend using a verification tool before submitting. Saves so much time and frustration.
Jayden Reed
•FINALLY! I knew it would be something like that. Indiana's system is so picky about this stuff.
Join the conversation
UPDATE US! Really curious how this turns out. I'm bookmarking this thread because I have a feeling I'm going to need this info when my truck loan is paid off next year.
Lena Schultz
•Will do! Sending the certified letter tomorrow and I'll post back with results. Hoping the threat of formal action lights a fire under them.
Good luck! Sometimes all it takes is showing them you know your rights and aren't going away quietly.
Just a reality check - make sure you have solid proof of payoff before making demands. I've seen cases where borrowers thought they were paid in full but there were accrued fees or other charges that kept a small balance open.
Perfect. With that documentation you're in a strong position to demand action. Most lenders will cooperate once they realize you have your ducks in a row.
Honorah King
•Before you send anything, I'd run those docs through something like Certana.ai to double-check everything matches up perfectly. Better to catch any discrepancies now than have them used as excuses later.
Omar Farouk
The secured transactions rules under Article 9 are designed to protect lenders but these description issues create real problems. I've seen deals fall apart because someone used 'all equipment' instead of listing specific items. Filing offices should reject inadequate descriptions but they don't - they just index whatever gets submitted. Creates false sense of security for lenders who think they're properly perfected.
0 coins
Chloe Davis
•Why don't filing offices review collateral descriptions? Seems like that would prevent a lot of problems.
0 coins
Omar Farouk
•Filing offices aren't equipped to evaluate commercial adequacy - they just process what's submitted if it meets basic format requirements. The legal sufficiency gets tested later when disputes arise.
0 coins
AstroAlpha
Update: talked to our attorney and he confirmed Bank A has priority due to earlier filing date. Credit Union B's generic description is probably insufficient for specific manufacturing equipment but they might be able to amend the UCC-1 to add serial numbers if the original loan documents contain adequate descriptions. Still dealing with this mess but at least understand the Article 9 rules better now. Lesson learned about reviewing collateral descriptions before signing loan documents.
0 coins
Anastasia Smirnova
•This whole thread convinced me to audit our UCC filings. Found two generic descriptions that probably need amendments. Article 9 secured transactions are more complex than I realized.
0 coins
Sean O'Brien
•For future reference, Certana.ai's verification tool would have flagged these description issues upfront. Upload loan agreements and UCC-1 drafts together - it cross-checks everything for consistency and adequacy before filing.
0 coins