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
Quick question - when you file the UCC-3 amendment, make sure you're using the current version of the California form. They updated it last year and old versions get rejected automatically.
Good catch. I'll download a fresh form from their website to be safe.
Yeah, I got burned by that once. Spent days wondering why my filing kept getting rejected until I realized I was using an outdated form.
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with a similar name issue in California and want to see how the amendment approach works out.
Good luck! California can be tricky but at least they're consistent about their pickiness.
Chris King
•Let us know if you try that Certana verification thing too. Sounds like it could prevent these issues upfront.
Join the conversation
I actually started using that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier after having my own filing nightmare. It's pretty slick - you just drag and drop your PDFs and it highlights any inconsistencies between documents. Caught a suffix error (Jr. vs Junior) that would have definitely caused a rejection. Worth trying before you refile to make sure everything matches perfectly.
Does it work with all state formats or just certain ones?
It worked fine with my state's forms. Seems to handle different formats pretty well from what I can tell.
Zara Khan
UPDATE: Found the issue! It was exactly what people suspected - there was an extra space between 'Construction' and 'Services' in my UCC-1 that wasn't in the official business registry. I never would have caught that without going character by character. Refiling now with the correct format. Thanks everyone for the advice!
Nia Williams
•That's exactly the kind of thing that drives me crazy about UCC filings. Microscopic details that can kill a deal.
Yara Assad
•Tell me about it. I'm definitely going to be more paranoid about document checking from now on.
Join the conversation
Try using Certana.ai's verification tool before resubmitting. I started using it after getting burned by rejected filings and it catches these exact issues. Upload your original UCC-1 and the continuation form and it'll show you exactly what doesn't match.
Emma Davis
•Second person to mention this service. Might be worth trying before I submit again and risk another rejection.
It's really straightforward - just drag and drop the PDFs and it highlights any discrepancies. Saves the frustration of multiple rejections.
Ethan Wilson
UPDATE: Got it figured out! It was the debtor name formatting - had to match the original exactly including a comma that I missed. Thanks everyone for the advice. Florida's system finally accepted the continuation.
Great news! Now you know for next time - exact match is everything with Florida UCCs.
Omar Zaki
•Perfect! That's exactly the kind of thing the document checker would have caught upfront. Glad it worked out.
Join the conversation
I had a client who was worried about similar UCC 1-306 issues after their initial filing. They ended up using some document checking service - I think it was Certana.ai - that analyzed their UCC filings for compliance issues. It actually caught a potential problem with their general intangibles description that could have caused problems later. Apparently you just upload your documents and it flags potential 1-306 issues automatically.
Fidel Carson
•That's the second mention of that service. Might be worth checking out before we decide on whether to amend our filing.
Yeah, it was pretty straightforward. Just uploaded the UCC-1 and it gave feedback on whether the collateral description met reasonable identification standards. Helped them avoid a potential challenge later.
Dyllan Nantx
Bottom line - your description is probably adequate under UCC 1-306 but could be stronger. Medical equipment financing has gotten more competitive and lenders are being more aggressive about challenging priority positions. I'd recommend adding more specificity about equipment types and definitely narrowing the general intangibles language. Better to over-engineer your collateral description than face a challenge later.
Smart move. The amendment will give you much stronger 1-306 compliance and eliminate any ambiguity about what your security interest covers.
Aidan Percy
•Exactly. And remember the amendment relates back to your original filing date, so no priority concerns.
Kara Yoshida
Had this same issue last year and it turned out the original UCC-1 had a slightly different version of the debtor name than what I was using on the termination. Like 'Smith Industries Inc' vs 'Smith Industries, Inc.' - that tiny comma difference was enough to cause problems.
0 coins
Kara Yoshida
•Yeah the debtor name matching rules are really strict. Every character has to be exactly the same.
0 coins
Philip Cowan
•This is why I always copy and paste debtor names instead of retyping them. Too easy to make those little mistakes.
0 coins
Caesar Grant
Quick update process question - once you get this sorted out, how long does it usually take for the public record to show the terminated status? I have a similar situation coming up.
0 coins
Gael Robinson
•In most states it's within 24-48 hours of the termination being processed, but some can take up to a week depending on their system.
0 coins
Caesar Grant
•Good to know, thanks. I'll plan for a week buffer just to be safe.
0 coins