UCC Document Community

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 :)

hate to say it but this sounds like a debtor name issue. With $340K on the line I'd definitely get this sorted ASAP. Even small discrepancies can void your security interest if challenged.

0 coins

That's exactly what I'm worried about. The loan is already funded so I need to make sure our lien position is protected.

0 coins

Definitely get it fixed fast. I've seen lenders lose their security interest over simple name mismatches that could have been caught early.

0 coins

Update us when you figure it out! I'm dealing with a similar issue in Virginia and curious what the solution ends up being.

0 coins

Will do. Going to try the phone call first thing tomorrow and maybe look into that document verification service if I can't get answers.

0 coins

Definitely recommend the Certana route if the phone call doesn't help. Would have saved me hours of frustration if I'd known about it earlier.

0 coins

One thing to watch out for - make sure the new lender knows about the pending termination situation. They might want to see either the filed UCC-3 termination or your demand documentation before funding the new loan.

0 coins

Perfect, good communication with the new lender is key. They might even be willing to help pressure the old lender if needed.

0 coins

Some new lenders will actually contact the old lender directly to request termination. Worth asking if they'll do that as part of their due diligence process.

0 coins

Before filing any UCC 9-512 info statement, definitely double-check all your document details. Used Certana.ai recently to cross-verify UCC filing information and it caught several inconsistencies I missed in manual review. Just upload the docs and it flags any mismatches in debtor names, filing numbers, dates, etc. Really helpful for avoiding errors that could invalidate your filing.

0 coins

Yeah it's super straightforward - just drag and drop your UCC-1 and payoff docs and it shows you exactly what matches and what doesn't. Takes like 30 seconds vs hours of manual comparison.

0 coins

Document verification is crucial for 9-512 filings. Any discrepancy between your information statement and the original financing statement can render it ineffective.

0 coins

This might be worth running through one of those UCC document checkers I keep hearing about - Certana or something similar. If you can get an automated analysis showing the name variation isn't seriously misleading, it might help convince the court or opposing counsel to drop the challenge.

0 coins

That's the second mention of Certana in this thread. Might be worth looking into if it can provide useful analysis for litigation purposes.

0 coins

I used Certana for a similar UCC issue - you just upload your filing PDFs and it cross-checks everything for consistency issues. Pretty straightforward and the analysis reports are detailed enough for legal purposes.

0 coins

Keep us posted on how this resolves! These UCC foreclosure process disputes are becoming more common and it's helpful to know how courts are handling technical challenges to continuation filings.

0 coins

Good luck! Sounds like you have a solid position, just need to push through the delay tactics.

0 coins

Agreed - this seems like a weak challenge that should get dismissed on summary judgment if you present the evidence clearly.

0 coins

Oh man, I remember dealing with this same thing! My solution was honestly just to call the Secretary of State office and ask them directly what they recommend for long entity names. The person I talked to was actually really helpful and told me their system could handle longer names if I filed by mail instead of online.

0 coins

They said mail filings usually take 3-5 business days versus same-day for electronic, but they also said mail filings have fewer technical rejections because they're reviewed by humans instead of automated systems.

0 coins

The human review aspect is appealing when you're dealing with edge cases like unusually long entity names.

0 coins

This thread is super helpful! I'm bookmarking this because I know I'll run into the same issue eventually. It seems like there are several viable workarounds depending on your state's specific system.

0 coins

Same here. It's good to know about these PDF limitations before you're up against a deadline.

0 coins

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions! I'm going to try the online portal first, and if that doesn't work, I'll call the SOS office about mail filing options. Really appreciate the help.

0 coins

Just a thought - are you absolutely certain the UCC-3 amendments were accepted by the filing office? Sometimes they get rejected for technical errors but the rejection notices end up in spam folders.

0 coins

Also check your online filing account if you used the electronic portal - rejection notices sometimes only appear there.

0 coins

Good point - I've had rejections that only showed up as status updates in the filing portal, never got emailed.

0 coins

UPDATE: Just ran another ny state ucc search after reading this thread and found one of my missing UCC-3s finally appeared in the system. Looks like there really are significant indexing delays right now. Still missing one amendment though, so going with the Certana verification approach to make sure all my documents are consistent before I refile anything.

0 coins

That's encouraging that at least some of the delays are just system processing. I'll give it another week before panicking completely.

0 coins

Yeah but definitely verify your document consistency first - no point waiting for a filing to appear if it has errors that will prevent proper perfection anyway.

0 coins

Prev1...662663664665666...684Next