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
Miguel Ramos
Don't forget about fixture filings if any of your equipment is attached to real estate. Those have different continuation rules and might need to be filed in real estate records too.
Carmen Vega
•We do have some HVAC equipment that might be considered fixtures. How do I know if it needs a fixture filing?
Miguel Ramos
•If the equipment is permanently attached to the real estate and would cause damage to remove, it's probably a fixture. Better to file a fixture filing to be safe.
One more thing - keep copies of everything. Not just the filing confirmations but copies of the actual UCC-3 continuation forms you filed. If there's ever a question about what you filed or when, you'll need those records.
Both. Electronic for easy access but physical copies in the loan files as backup. You never know when you might need to prove exactly what was filed.
Zainab Omar
•I was skeptical about document management tools but tried Certana.ai for organizing all our UCC filings and it's actually been helpful. Creates a timeline view of all amendments and continuations for each original filing so you can see the complete history at a glance.
Join the conversation
Rachel Clark
For what it's worth, this issue isn't unique to Idaho. We see similar problems in several states that require exact name matches. The key is having a systematic approach to generate all possible name variations before you start searching.
Which other states have you found to be particularly problematic for name matching?
Mia Alvarez
•Any chance you could share your systematic approach? We're always looking to improve our search protocols.
Bottom line - budget extra time for UCC searches in Idaho and states with similar exact-match requirements. Better to spend a few extra hours on comprehensive searching than to miss a critical lien that derails your transaction.
Sophia Long
•Absolutely agree. The cost of thorough searching is always less than the cost of missing something important.
We learned this lesson the hard way. Now UCC searches are a separate line item in our due diligence budget with adequate time allocated.
Join the conversation
GalaxyGazer
Update for anyone following this thread - I figured out the confusion. The rejection notice wasn't actually citing UCC 1-308 as the reason for rejection. It was part of an informational section explaining various UCC provisions, and 'significado' was just clarifying what that section means. The actual rejection was for a debtor name mismatch like everyone suspected. Thanks for all the help sorting this out!
This is why I always triple check debtor names before submitting. One character off and you're back to square one.
Ethan Moore
•Perfect example of why the automated document checking is so valuable. Would have caught that name issue before submission.
For future reference, the main UCC sections that actually matter for financing statement filings are in Article 9. Section 9-502 for sufficiency requirements, 9-503 for debtor names, 9-504 for secured party names, 9-108 for collateral descriptions. Those are the ones that'll actually cause rejections if you mess them up. UCC 1-308 is more about contract performance and rights preservation.
Article 9 is definitely where all the action is for secured transactions. Good to know the specific sections.
Andre Moreau
•This whole thread has been educational. Love when forum discussions actually teach you something useful.
Join the conversation
Brian Downey
For what it's worth, I've never seen an Ohio filing get challenged over 'Manufacturing' vs 'Mfg' type abbreviations. The comma thing is more of a wild card but even that rarely causes real problems in practice.
Cedric Chung
•That's helpful context. Sounds like Ohio is pretty reasonable about common business abbreviations.
Jacinda Yu
•Most states are getting better about this stuff. The old days of hyper-technical rejections seem to be fading.
Update us on what you decide? Always helpful to hear how these situations get resolved for future reference.
Smart to get legal sign-off. Better to have everyone comfortable with the decision.
Jean Claude
•And if you do end up running those documents through a verification tool, curious to hear what it flags. Always learning something new from these edge cases.
Giovanni Mancini
Just went through this exact scenario two weeks ago! The problem was that our UCC-1 got filed under a slightly different version of the company name due to character limits in their system. The filed document showed the correct full name, but the searchable index used a truncated version. Only way I found it was by searching the filing date range and scrolling through results.
0 coins
Sean Doyle
•That's super helpful! What was the character limit that caused the truncation?
0 coins
Giovanni Mancini
•I think it was around 50 characters for the indexed name field, but the actual filing can contain the full name. Really frustrating system design.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Suwaidi
Update us when you figure this out! I'm dealing with a similar California UCC search issue and curious what the solution ends up being.
0 coins
Sean Doyle
•Will do! Going to try the entity name lookup first, then the wildcard search, and if that doesn't work I'll call the SOS office directly.
0 coins
Dylan Cooper
•Following this thread too. California's UCC system definitely has some quirks that aren't well documented.
0 coins