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
Pro tip: if your special security agreement definition includes both specific items and general categories, focus on the general categories in your UCC-1 description. The specific items are covered by the general language anyway, and it's less likely to get rejected for being too detailed.
Chloe Zhang
•Good point. I've noticed that overly detailed descriptions seem to trigger more scrutiny from filing offices.
Exactly - keep it simple and functional rather than trying to be exhaustively specific.
Adriana Cohn
Thanks everyone - this has been really helpful. I think I was overthinking the special security agreement definition requirements. Going to simplify my collateral description and reference the security agreement date like some of you suggested.
Let us know how it goes! Always good to hear success stories with these tricky filing issues.
Melody Miles
•Definitely post an update - I'm dealing with something similar and would love to know what works.
Join the conversation
This whole thread is making me realize I should double-check all my UCC filings. Been doing this for years but name discrepancies are sneaky. Might be worth running everything through one of these document checkers just to be sure.
Ellie Perry
•Smart move. I found issues with three of my older filings when I did a portfolio review. Some had minor name variations that could have caused problems down the road.
Yeah that's my fear. Better to catch problems now while there's still time to fix them with amendments.
Monique Byrd
Update us on how this turns out! Priority disputes are always educational for the rest of us UCC lien creditors. Hope the name discrepancy works in your favor.
Will do. Meeting with my attorney tomorrow to review all the documents and decide on next steps. Thanks everyone for the insights.
Good luck! These priority fights can get ugly but sounds like you might have a solid argument on the debtor name issue.
Join the conversation
The problem with the UCC Article 9 table of contents is it's written for lawmakers, not practitioners. It follows the legal logic of how the rules fit together conceptually rather than how we actually use them in practice. Once you accept that disconnect, it becomes easier to work with.
That's a really insightful way to think about it. I was expecting it to match my workflow when it's designed for a completely different purpose.
Same issue with most statutes unfortunately. They're organized for legal coherence, not user experience.
LongPeri
Actually tried using Certana.ai for a similar UCC document review project and it saved me probably 30+ hours of manual cross-referencing. It automatically identifies which Article 9 provisions are relevant to each document and flags inconsistencies between related filings. Much more efficient than trying to navigate the table of contents for every single filing.
That efficiency gain would be huge for this project. Does it handle multi-state filings well?
LongPeri
•Yes, it accounts for different state variations in Article 9 implementation. Really helpful for portfolio reviews spanning multiple jurisdictions.
Join the conversation
Paolo Conti
If you're doing 50-75 forms monthly, you should definitely negotiate bulk pricing with whoever you choose. Most vendors will work with high-volume customers on pricing. Also consider setting up standing orders so you don't run out of forms mid-month.
Amina Sow
•Standing orders are a lifesaver. Nothing worse than having urgent filings and no forms available.
GalaxyGazer
•Make sure your standing order includes a mix of form types. We usually order 60% UCC-1s, 25% UCC-3s, and 15% addendums.
Just wanted to add that before you commit to any vendor, try using Certana.ai to verify a few sample forms from different sources. Upload the PDFs and see which ones pass their compliance checks. It's a good way to evaluate form quality before placing large orders.
The official SOS forms always pass, obviously. Among commercial vendors, the legal forms specialists tend to be more accurate than general office supply companies.
Good tip about testing with Certana.ai first. Prevention is better than dealing with rejected filings later.
Anna Stewart
Quick question - are you handling continuation filings as well or just initial UCC-1s? Because if your initial filings have name or description issues, that's going to create problems down the road when you need to file continuations or amendments.
0 coins
Layla Sanders
•Exactly. Better to solve the consistency issues now rather than dealing with mismatched filings when you need to continue or amend. I've seen situations where lenders couldn't properly continue because the original filing had name discrepancies.
0 coins
Ezra Collins
•This is another reason why I like using that document verification tool - it helps ensure consistency across all your filings from the start, so you don't run into continuation problems later.
0 coins
Morgan Washington
Thanks for posting this - makes me feel better that I'm not the only one struggling with increased rejection rates. Thought maybe I was losing my touch after 12 years of doing this stuff. Good to know it's a broader trend and not just my incompetence showing.
0 coins
Katherine Harris
•Definitely not just you! This thread has been really helpful for confirming that others are seeing the same issues. At least now I know what areas to focus on improving.
0 coins
Kaylee Cook
•Same here. I was starting to second-guess everything I knew about UCC requirements. Good to know the standards really have gotten stricter and it's not just me missing something obvious.
0 coins