


Ask the community...
Sorry this happened to you. UCC Article 9 priority rules can be brutal when you don't see them coming. At least you'll know to watch for PMSI issues on future deals.
One more thing to check - make sure their UCC-1 actually describes the equipment correctly for PMSI priority. UCC Article 9 priority rules require the collateral description to be specific enough to identify the purchase money collateral.
Professional equipment lenders usually know UCC Article 9 priority rules inside and out. They have to in order to protect their interests.
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.
That's helpful context. Sounds like Ohio is pretty reasonable about common business abbreviations.
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.
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.
For future reference, I keep a log of when the search portal has issues. Noticed it's usually worst between 10AM-2PM on weekdays. Planning searches outside those windows has helped a lot with reliability.
Final update - managed to complete my portfolio review using a combination of off-peak searches and automated document verification. The Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier really helped fill in gaps where the manual searches were still failing. Caught two debtor name discrepancies that could have been problematic. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
For what it's worth, this comma thing is incredibly common. The state systems can't distinguish between intentional punctuation and typos so they reject anything that doesn't match exactly. Once you refile with the correct name it should process without any issues.
UPDATE: Just wanted to follow up - refiled the UCC-1 with the exact registered name including the comma and it was accepted within 4 hours! Thanks everyone for the quick help. Definitely going to start using that document verification tool someone mentioned to catch these issues upfront.
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