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
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
Have you considered getting a UCC search done to see how your filing looks in the system? Sometimes what you submitted and what got indexed are different, especially with consumer filings where name variations can cause issues.
That's a good idea. I should probably run a search under different name variations to make sure it's findable.
Certana.ai can help with that too - their search feature checks multiple name variations automatically.
From what you've described, your consumer security agreement UCC-1 filing sounds properly done. The collateral description covers the right categories, you filed in the correct state, and for a $15K loan the approach is appropriate. Main thing is making sure the debtor name on the UCC-1 exactly matches their legal name for perfection purposes.
Thanks, that's reassuring. I'll double-check the name matching just to be absolutely sure.
Yeah name matching is critical. Even a missing middle initial can void perfection in some states.
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
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.
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