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 is why proper due diligence before filing is so important. Always run a UCC search first to see what's already out there. But since you're already in this situation, you need to trace both filings back to their source and get the incorrect one fixed.
Lesson learned for sure. Just trying to clean up the mess now so we can move forward with our refinancing.
Totally understand. Once you identify which filing is wrong, the correction process is usually pretty straightforward.
Been there! The key is getting certified copies of both filings and then working with your attorney to determine the proper course of action. Might need UCC-3 corrections, might need terminations, depends on the specific situation. But don't let this drag on - lenders hate unclear collateral situations.
Already working with our attorney but wanted to get some practical input from people who've been through this before. Really appreciate all the advice here.
Smart approach. The more you understand about the situation before meeting with your attorney, the more efficient and cost-effective the resolution will be.
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
Are you sure all your filings were actually accepted when they were originally submitted? Sometimes filings get rejected for minor errors but the rejection notices get overlooked, so people think they have valid filings when they actually don't.
Definitely worth double-checking. I've seen situations where filing confirmations got lost in email or weren't properly communicated back to the lender.
This is another reason why having a systematic document verification process is so important. Too easy for things to slip through the cracks otherwise.
For what it's worth, I recently started using that Certana tool someone mentioned earlier and it's been really helpful for catching these exact issues. Uploaded our whole UCC portfolio and it flagged several name mismatches and potential continuation deadline problems we didn't know about. Made our compliance review much smoother.
That sounds like exactly what I need. Does it work with Washington state filings specifically?
Yeah, it handles filings from all states. The PDF upload feature makes it really easy to batch process everything at once rather than doing individual searches.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've been tracking UCC 103.6 interpretations across different jurisdictions and most are still applying the traditional reasonable identification test. The challenges you're seeing are likely outliers rather than mainstream interpretation.
That's reassuring. Do you have any resources that track these interpretation differences?
I maintain a spreadsheet based on reported cases and filing office guidance. Most are consistent with pre-revision standards.
Honestly sounds like you need better verification processes before filing. We started using automated checking tools and haven't had description challenges since. That Certana system someone mentioned earlier works pretty well for catching these issues upfront.
Agreed. Prevention is definitely better than dealing with challenges after the fact.
Exactly. Upload your documents and get immediate feedback on potential 103.6 compliance issues before filing.
Ryder Everingham
The key question is whether your collateral description creates genuine ambiguity about what property is secured. If 'all inventory and equipment' could reasonably include restaurant fixtures and food inventory, you might not need reformation at all. Courts look at commercial reasonableness, not technical perfection.
0 coins
Ryder Everingham
•Or the attorney is fishing for a settlement. Without seeing the actual security agreement and UCC filing, it's hard to judge whether their challenge has merit.
0 coins
Lilly Curtis
•honestly this whole situation sounds like it could have been avoided with better document review before filing
0 coins
Leo Simmons
Update us on what happens! I'm curious whether reformation will work for UCC collateral descriptions. This could set important precedent for other lenders dealing with similar issues.
0 coins
Ashley Simian
•Will do. Meeting with our UCC attorney next week to discuss options. Hoping we can find a solution that doesn't cost more than the loan balance.
0 coins
Lindsey Fry
•good luck with it, these collateral description disputes are such a headache
0 coins