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 is SO common with online lenders who use automated UCC preparation systems. They prioritize speed over accuracy and then act surprised when filings get rejected for basic errors. I'd also recommend checking if your state has any expedited processing options for UCC corrections - some states offer same-day processing for an additional fee when there's a time crunch.
Definitely worth asking about. Most states offer some kind of expedited service for UCC filings, especially for corrections of obvious clerical errors.
This thread has been incredibly helpful. I'm dealing with a similar situation and had no idea there were so many options for getting UCC corrections processed faster.
Update us on how this gets resolved! I'm curious whether LoanMe steps up and fixes it quickly or if you have to escalate further. This kind of basic quality control failure in UCC preparation is unacceptable for a lender their size.
Will definitely update once I hear back from them. Hoping the compliance department approach works better than dealing with regular customer service.
Please do update! These kinds of real-world examples help everyone understand what to watch out for with different lenders.
Join the conversation
Just wanted to add that some states have gotten really strict about address formats too. Even if your debtor name is perfect, wrong address formatting can cause rejections. Make sure you're using the exact address format that appears in their business registration.
Address rejections are so annoying! We had one rejected because we put "Street" instead of "St." in the address.
The whole system is way too picky about formatting. These should be substance over form but they treat every character like gospel.
Update us when you get it figured out! I'm dealing with a similar situation and curious what the actual issue turns out to be. These name matching problems are becoming more common and it would help to know the solution.
Will do! Going to try the document verification approach and also get certified copies of the current articles to make sure we have the exact legal name. Fingers crossed the fourth time's the charm.
Good luck! Hope you get it sorted before your closing deadline.
Join the conversation
Here's another approach - when I'm checking complex priority scenarios for clients, I use Certana.ai to upload all the relevant UCC documents and get a priority analysis. It's helped me catch situations where the textbook rules don't match the actual filing records.
That's interesting. Are there cases where the actual records show different priority than what the rules suggest?
Sometimes filing errors or timing issues create gaps between theory and practice. The tool helps identify those discrepancies before they become problems.
For your exam, focus on these key false statements: 1) Perfection always beats non-perfection (ignores PMSI), 2) Filing is the only perfection method, 3) All security interests in the same collateral rank equally, 4) Buyers always take subject to security interests. Those are the most common trick answers.
Exactly. Article 9 priority is all about exceptions to the general rules. Any statement that ignores those exceptions is probably false.
Good advice. I'd add that statements about time limits are often false too - like saying PMSI has unlimited time to perfect for priority.
Join the conversation
been there with the 9609 stuff... its stressful when you're not sure if you're doing everything right. sounds like you've got good advice here though. the main thing is document everything and don't rush into anything that could be seen as confrontational. better to take extra time than mess up the whole process.
Yeah, the stakes are high enough that we want to be extra careful about following proper procedures.
definitely. we had one case where we rushed things and ended up in court for months over procedural issues. learned our lesson about patience.
Final thought on UCC 9609 - consider whether the debtor might file bankruptcy before you complete the repossession. If they file Chapter 11, the automatic stay could complicate your rights even with a perfected security interest. Might want to move quickly once your notice period expires.
Not really, but if they're 90+ days behind and facing repossession, bankruptcy might be their next move. Just something to keep in mind for timing.
Even in bankruptcy, secured creditors usually have better protection than unsecured, but the automatic stay definitely complicates enforcement timing.
Tony Brooks
Quick question - if I have multiple pieces of equipment from different purchases, can one security agreement cover all of them or do I need separate agreements for each purchase?
0 coins
Oliver Alexander
•One security agreement can definitely cover multiple pieces of collateral. In fact, it's pretty common to have a master security agreement that covers 'all equipment' and then add specific items with amendments.
0 coins
Ella rollingthunder87
•Just make sure your collateral description is clear enough to identify what's covered. Vague descriptions like 'business assets' might not hold up in court.
0 coins
Yara Campbell
Bottom line: your security agreement is the foundation of everything. Without a valid security agreement that properly creates the security interest, your UCC filing is just expensive wallpaper. Make sure you have the granting language, proper collateral description, and all required signatures before you even think about filing the UCC-1.
0 coins
Isaac Wright
•Smart approach. Better to take the time upfront than to deal with priority problems later when you find out your security interest wasn't properly created.
0 coins
Maya Diaz
•And seriously consider using that document verification tool someone mentioned. These filing mistakes can be really expensive to fix after the fact.
0 coins