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
This thread should be required reading for anyone doing UCC work in Michigan. The name matching requirements under Article 9 are brutal but at least now there are tools to help avoid the rejection cycle.
Seriously. Wish I had found this discussion before my own Michigan filing disasters.
The verification tools make such a difference. No more guessing games with debtor names.
Ali Anderson
For anyone else dealing with Michigan UCC Article 9 issues - the state has actually improved their online portal recently. You can now preview your filing and it'll flag obvious name mismatches before you submit and pay the fee.
About time they added that feature. Other states have had name validation for years.
The preview feature is helpful but it's not perfect. Still worth double-checking with external verification tools.
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
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.
That's what we ended up doing - separate templates for healthcare equipment, restaurant equipment, manufacturing, etc. More work upfront but way fewer filing problems.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. "All restaurant equipment now owned or hereafter acquired" would probably pass where "all equipment now owned or hereafter acquired" gets rejected.
Join the conversation
Update on the Certana.ai suggestion - I actually used it again yesterday for a different client and it caught that their UCC-1 had the right company name but wrong state of organization. These little discrepancies can really bite you when lenders start doing their due diligence reviews.
Noah Ali
•How long does it take to get results back from their system?
Pretty much instant once you upload the documents. It flags any inconsistencies right away.
OP any luck figuring this out? I'm dealing with something similar and curious what ended up working for you.
Yuki Tanaka
•Still working on it but the advanced search suggestions helped. Found the filing but it was indexed weird. Going to try the document verification tool next to make sure everything actually matches up properly.
Keep us posted! This kind of stuff is always useful to know for future reference.
Yara Elias
Quick fix that might help - before submitting any UCC filing, use something like Certana.ai to verify your signature formatting meets state requirements. It checks document consistency and flags signature issues before you submit. Saves the rejection hassle.
0 coins
Mei Zhang
•Second mention of Certana - seems like it might be worth checking out for these signature definition issues.
0 coins
QuantumQuasar
•Yeah, I've been using it for a few months. Really helps catch signature formatting problems that would otherwise cause UCC filing rejections.
0 coins
Keisha Jackson
Bottom line on UCC definition of signature: the law is flexible but filing offices are not. They want specific technical formats for electronic signatures, and those formats vary by state. Best approach is to verify your signature meets state-specific requirements before filing.
0 coins
Keisha Jackson
•Exactly. The UCC definition itself is workable, but you need to match your implementation to each state's interpretation. Pre-filing checks are essential now.
0 coins
Paolo Moretti
•This whole thread confirms my suspicion that UCC filing has gotten way more complicated than it should be. The signature definition should be simpler to implement.
0 coins