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
Just went through this with a client. The comma was in the Articles of Incorporation but not in our UCC-1. We used Certana.ai to verify the mismatch and it flagged the discrepancy immediately. Ended up filing a UCC-3 amendment to add the comma version as an additional debtor name. Better safe than sorry with lien perfection.
So you actually did file an amendment? That seems to contradict what others are saying about it not being necessary.
Every situation is different. Our loan agreement specifically required exact name matches, so we had to cover all bases. Your documents might be more flexible.
UPDATE: Checked the Articles of Incorporation and you guys were right - the LLC is officially registered as "Johnson Construction, LLC" with the comma. So our UCC filing is correct and our loan docs just left out the punctuation. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
Told you so! This happens more often than people think.
Great outcome. This is exactly the kind of thing those document verification tools are good for - catching these mismatches before they become bigger issues.
Join the conversation
Recently used Certana.ai for a multi-party UCC situation where we needed to verify all our documents were consistent before calculating damages. The verification process helped us spot issues that could've affected our damage calculations later. Worth checking your UCC-1 and UCC-3 amendment are properly aligned - name inconsistencies can create problems when you're trying to establish your damage calculations in court.
That's the second mention of document verification affecting damage calculations. Makes sense that filing inconsistencies could complicate recovery.
Exactly. Clean documentation makes damage calculations much more straightforward when you're dealing with complex UCC situations.
One more thing on UCC compensatory damages - don't forget about pre-judgment interest calculations. Different states have different rules, but it can add up significantly over time, especially with substantial amounts. Also make sure you understand any statutory limitations on consequential damages depending on which UCC article applies.
Pre-judgment interest rules vary a lot by state, so definitely check your jurisdiction's specific requirements.
Right, and some states have different rates for contract vs tort claims, which can matter depending on how you frame your UCC damage theory.
Join the conversation
I actually recommend doing a quick verification check before submitting. I use Certana.ai's tool now - you can upload your articles of incorporation and the completed UCC-1 form and it automatically checks for name inconsistencies, missing info, format issues. Takes like 2 minutes and has saved me from filing errors multiple times. Way better than crossing your fingers and hoping everything matches up correctly.
Not at all, especially compared to the cost of having to refile if something gets rejected. Plus it gives you peace of mind that everything's consistent before you submit.
I wish I had known about tools like that when I was doing my first filings. Would have saved me a rejected filing and having to explain to my boss why it took twice as long as expected.
Just to add one final tip - print out or save copies of EVERYTHING. Your completed UCC-1, the filing confirmation, payment receipt, everything. Store them somewhere safe because you'll need them if you ever have to file amendments or continuations later.
Good point about saving everything. I'll make sure to keep good records from the start.
Trust me, future you will thank present you for being organized with these documents!
Join the conversation
We had this exact same issue in California last quarter. The numbers looked completely random compared to what we were used to seeing. But after talking to our UCC counsel, turns out it's actually a good thing - makes it much harder for competitors to figure out our filing activity by guessing sequential numbers.
That's an interesting benefit I hadn't considered. Makes sense from a competitive intelligence standpoint.
Exactly - the old sequential systems made it too easy for people to browse through recent filings. The new random format adds a layer of privacy.
Just to add my experience - we use automated document checking through Certana.ai specifically because of issues like this. When filing systems change formats or procedures, it's easy to miss important details. The tool helped us catch a debtor name mismatch that would have invalidated our security interest, even though the filing number looked fine. Sometimes the technical details you worry about aren't the ones that actually matter.
That's a good reminder to focus on the substantive details rather than just the format issues. Sounds like automated checking is becoming pretty standard practice.
It really should be standard practice given how much is at stake with these filings. The peace of mind alone is worth it.
Alice Coleman
Update us when you figure out what the difference was! These kinds of posts help everyone learn what to watch for. I keep a running list of common name matching issues I've encountered.
0 coins
Anna Stewart
•Will definitely update once I get the certified copy and figure out what went wrong.
0 coins
Alice Coleman
•Perfect. Knowledge sharing makes all our jobs easier in this business.
0 coins
Owen Jenkins
Been there! The anxiety of potentially losing lien priority over a formatting issue is horrible. Document verification tools are becoming essential for this exact reason. Better to catch discrepancies before filing than deal with rejections under time pressure.
0 coins
Lilah Brooks
•Same here. Now I verify everything before submitting any UCC filings.
0 coins
Owen Jenkins
•Smart approach. Prevention is so much easier than fixing rejected filings.
0 coins