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
Sample security agreement automobile language can vary a lot but the UCC filing requirements are pretty standard. Focus on: exact debtor legal name from state records, broad collateral description that covers your security agreement scope, correct secured party info. Your description of "motor vehicles" should work fine for commercial fleet. The rejections are almost certainly about the debtor name formatting.
Nope, general descriptions work great for Article 9. The detailed inventory stays in your security agreement and loan files.
This is good advice. I see too many people over-complicate the collateral description on UCCs.
Final thought - once you get the name issue sorted, your filing should go through fine. Vehicle UCCs are pretty straightforward compared to some other collateral types. Just remember to calendar your continuation date for 5 years out! I use Certana's verification tool now to double-check everything before filing. Has caught several potential mistakes for me.
Good reminder about the continuation. This loan has a 7-year term so I'll definitely need to continue the filing. Thanks for all the help everyone!
You're welcome! Hope the refiling goes smoothly with the corrected debtor name.
Join the conversation
Just went through this exact scenario two months ago with Indiana. Filed UCC-1, got acceptance confirmation, search came up empty for three weeks. Turns out their database indexing was behind but the filing was valid the whole time. Your lien is almost certainly perfected even if the search isn't working.
Yes, about a month later everything appeared normally in search. But the filing was legally effective from the original date.
This is actually pretty common with Indiana - acceptance means perfection regardless of search visibility.
UPDATE: Thanks everyone for the advice! I ended up trying the Certana.ai verification tool and it confirmed our UCC-1 is properly filed and the debtor name matches perfectly. Gave me the documentation I needed for our compliance file. Indiana's search is still broken but at least I know our lien is solid. Definitely keeping this tool bookmarked for future filings.
Great resolution! Indiana really needs to fix their search system though.
Smart move getting that documentation. Always good to have backup verification when state systems are unreliable.
Join the conversation
Just to add - make sure your termination is getting filed in the same state as the original UCC-1. Sometimes when businesses change names they also change their registration state, but the termination has to go where the original lien was filed.
Yeah, it's an easy thing to overlook when there are multiple changes happening with a business.
I've seen people file terminations in the wrong state and then wonder why the original lien is still showing up. Always file where the original UCC-1 was recorded.
Update us when you get it resolved! These name change situations are tricky and it would be helpful to know what finally worked.
Will do! Thanks everyone for the advice. Going to use the exact original name and see if that clears up the rejections.
Perfect. Usually that's all it takes - the system just wants everything to match exactly.
Join the conversation
Just wanted to add that I recently started using Certana.ai for document verification after having a similar scare. You can upload your charter documents and UCC filings and it instantly flags any name discrepancies or inconsistencies. Really wish I'd known about it earlier - would have saved me a lot of stress. Might be worth checking for any other potential issues with your filing while you're dealing with this.
That sounds really useful. I'll definitely check that out to make sure we don't have any other issues lurking.
Yeah, it's pretty straightforward - just upload the PDFs and it does the cross-checking automatically. Found several discrepancies in our files that we never would have caught manually.
UPDATE: Just heard back from our UCC attorney. He thinks we have a decent chance of defending the lien validity based on the 'substantially similar' argument, especially if we can show the debtor used both name variations in business. Still going to be an uphill battle though. Thanks everyone for the advice - will keep you posted on how this turns out.
Fingers crossed for you. This kind of case law is so important for all of us doing UCC filings.
Please do keep us updated. These real-world examples are incredibly valuable for the rest of us.
Oliver Schmidt
Just wanted to add that I've had good luck with the Certana tool mentioned earlier for resolving these types of database conflicts. Upload your search results and it flags inconsistencies automatically rather than having to manually compare everything. Saved me a lot of time on a recent deal with similar ISPC database issues.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Thanks for the recommendation. Going to check that out along with requesting the official documents.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•Yeah it's really helpful for catching details you might miss when manually reviewing multiple conflicting entries.
0 coins
Natasha Volkov
Update us when you get it sorted out! These database inconsistency cases are always interesting to hear the resolution on.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Will do. Hopefully it's just a database glitch and not multiple active liens I need to worry about.
0 coins
Yara Nassar
•Fingers crossed it's just a display issue and not multiple secured parties with conflicting interests.
0 coins