


Ask the community...
I actually started using that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier after having similar issues. It's pretty straightforward - you just upload your UCC-1 and UCC-3 PDFs and it highlights any inconsistencies. Caught a debtor name mismatch I would have missed. Worth checking out if you're having ongoing issues with UCC-3 rejections.
One more thing - make sure you're using the correct filing number format. I've seen UCC-3s rejected because the filing number didn't match exactly, including dashes and spacing.
Yeah, some states are really picky about the exact format. Double-check the original filing number format against what you're putting on the UCC-3.
That document checker I mentioned earlier also verifies filing number consistency, which is another common rejection reason.
UPDATE: I ended up having our attorney handle the UCC-3 filing and it went through without any issues. The lender never did respond to our requests, but the debtor termination was accepted and the lien is now cleared. Thanks everyone for the advice - definitely learned a lot about the UCC process through this experience.
Glad it worked out! It's annoying when lenders don't follow through but at least there are options for debtors to handle it themselves.
For anyone else dealing with unresponsive secured parties, document everything! Keep records of all your requests for termination, proof of debt satisfaction, and any communication attempts. This documentation is crucial if you need to file a debtor termination or if there are any disputes later.
I also recommend taking screenshots of the UCC database showing the active filing before and after termination. It's good to have visual proof of the status change.
Smart thinking. I wish I'd been more organized with my documentation when I went through this process. Would have saved a lot of stress.
Just curious - what state are you in? Some states have known issues with their UCC systems and this might be a widespread problem they're already working on.
Fair enough. The larger states sometimes have more complex systems that are more prone to these kinds of glitches.
In my experience the states with 'modern' systems often have more problems than the ones still using simple databases.
UPDATE: I called the Secretary of State office and they confirmed it was a system error. They're going to correct the records and said I should see the fix within 2 weeks. Thanks everyone for the advice!
Perfect example of why it helps to verify your documents first. Saves time when you can show exactly what the problem is.
This gives me hope for my similar issue. Going to call them tomorrow.
Pro tip: when you do your Georgia searches, also check for any lapsed continuations. If you find filings that should have been continued but weren't, you might need to refile entirely depending on timing.
For what it's worth, I tried that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier and it actually caught a debtor name mismatch between our loan agreement and UCC-1 that we had missed in our internal review. Could have been a costly mistake if we hadn't found it before renewal time.
That's reassuring. Always nervous about trying new tools for compliance work.
I was skeptical too but it's pretty straightforward. Just upload your documents and it does the comparison automatically. Found issues we would have definitely missed doing it manually.
Anthony Young
I actually had a client use that Certana document checker tool someone mentioned earlier and it caught a discrepancy we totally missed between the original UCC-1 and what was showing in the PA search results. The debtor had slightly changed their legal name since the original filing and we needed to do an amendment before the continuation. Would have been a disaster if we'd just filed the continuation without catching that.
0 coins
Anthony Young
•Yeah, the tool basically does a line-by-line comparison and highlights anything that doesn't match perfectly. Takes the guesswork out of it.
0 coins
Charlotte White
•That's exactly the kind of thing that's easy to miss when you're doing manual comparisons. Automated checking makes a lot of sense for this stuff.
0 coins
Admin_Masters
Update for anyone following this thread - I ended up pulling a certified copy of the current record like several people suggested, and there were indeed some formatting differences from my original filing. Used the exact information from the certified copy for my continuation and it was accepted without any issues. Thanks everyone for the advice!
0 coins
Dominic Green
•Wait, you're not the original poster... but good advice anyway!
0 coins
Admin_Masters
•Oops sorry, got confused about which thread I was in. But the advice still stands!
0 coins