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
This thread is making me nervous about my own Colorado filings. Going to double-check everything now to make sure our UCC search reports are actually complete.
Smart move. Better to be paranoid about lien searches than miss something important.
Exactly. Missing a prior lien because of search system problems could be catastrophic for a secured lender.
For what it's worth, I ended up calling Colorado SOS UCC department at 303-894-2200 and they were able to confirm my filing over the phone while their search system was acting up. Might be worth trying if you need immediate verification.
Good idea. Sometimes the old-fashioned phone call is more reliable than their online systems.
Just make sure to get the name and confirmation number of whoever you speak with for your records.
Join the conversation
One more thing to consider - check if the seller has any subsidiaries or parent companies that might have liens on the equipment. Corporate structures can complicate UCC searches significantly.
Start with secretary of state corporate filings, then check for any cross-default provisions in existing loan documents. Sometimes the parent company guarantees subsidiaries' debts.
This is getting complicated fast. Might need to bring in a professional search company for this deal.
Professional searchers are worth it for big deals but for smaller acquisitions you can usually handle it yourself if you're methodical. Just budget extra time for the name variation searches and document review.
Personally I go professional for anything over $500K in equipment value or if there are complex corporate structures involved. Below that it's usually cost-effective to do it yourself.
That Certana tool mentioned earlier might be a good middle ground - gets you some automation without the full cost of a professional search firm.
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.
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.
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
One more thing to consider - if your supporting obligations include things like accounts receivable from maintenance contracts or insurance proceeds, those might need separate treatment as proceeds rather than supporting obligations. The classification can affect perfection requirements.
Insurance proceeds are typically covered under proceeds provisions rather than supporting obligations. Most standard UCC filings include proceeds language that would cover insurance payments automatically.
Yes, proceeds are usually covered separately. Your UCC should have language like 'together with all proceeds, products, and accessions thereof' which would pick up insurance money.
Thanks everyone for this discussion. I feel much more confident about handling supporting obligations in my UCC filings now. Going to revise my standard forms to be more explicit about these types of obligations.
Glad this was helpful! If you're revising your standard forms, definitely consider using a document verification tool like Certana.ai to double-check that your new language properly aligns with your security agreements. It's saved me from several potential perfection gaps.
Great suggestion. I'm definitely going to look into that verification tool before I file this UCC. Better to catch any issues upfront than deal with problems later.
Harold Oh
UPDATE: I pulled the actual UCC-1 filing image and it shows 'Mountain Ridge Construction LLC' exactly as it appears on their articles - no comma. So the search display was just adding punctuation that wasn't actually filed. Thanks everyone for the reassurance!
0 coins
Summer Green
•Perfect example of why you always need to check the source documents rather than trusting search displays.
0 coins
Gael Robinson
•Excellent outcome. For future peace of mind, that Certana tool mentioned earlier would catch these discrepancies instantly.
0 coins
Edward McBride
This thread is super helpful - I'm bookmarking it for reference. Dealing with UCC filings is stressful enough without worrying about search display quirks!
0 coins
Darcy Moore
•Right? The technical aspects are complicated enough without the systems adding confusion.
0 coins
Dana Doyle
•At least SC provides access to the actual filing images. Some states make that process much more difficult.
0 coins