


Ask the community...
I'm dealing with almost the exact same situation right now! Equipment loan, broad UCC-1 description, detailed security agreement. Reading through this thread is making me feel a lot better about our filing. Thanks for asking the question I was afraid to ask.
Yeah, this forum is great for getting real-world perspective on this stuff. Way better than trying to decipher the statutes on your own.
This thread has been incredibly helpful! I'm new to UCC filings and was getting stressed about making sure everything was perfect. It's reassuring to know that having different levels of detail between the UCC-1 and security agreement is not only normal but actually the right approach. The explanation about the UCC-1 serving as public notice while the security agreement handles the private contractual details really clarifies things. Thanks everyone for sharing your experiences - it's exactly the kind of practical insight you can't get from just reading the regulations.
Welcome to the community! You're absolutely right - the practical insights here are invaluable. I'm also relatively new to UCC filings and found this discussion really eye-opening. It's one of those areas where the "real world" practice differs from what you might assume just reading the legal requirements. The community here has been great at explaining these nuances in plain language.
Just file it with the comma and move on. I bet you'll get an acceptance within 24 hours. The system is annoying but at least it's consistent - once you figure out their format quirks, you can work with them. The important thing is maintaining your perfection on that equipment loan.
Let us know how it goes! Always curious to hear if these formatting fixes actually work.
UPDATE: I called the filing office this morning and they confirmed it's just a comma issue. They said their system auto-formats business names to include commas before 'LLC' and 'Inc' but it doesn't always do it consistently on the initial filing. They told me to just resubmit the continuation with 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' (with comma) and it should go through fine. Filing it now - will update once I get confirmation.
ACCEPTED! Just got the confirmation email. Thanks everyone for the advice, especially about calling the office directly. Crisis averted!
Awesome! So glad it worked out. This is exactly why I always recommend calling when you hit these technical issues - the online systems can be so finicky but the staff usually know the workarounds. Definitely saving this thread for future reference since I'm sure I'll run into similar formatting issues down the road.
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with a similar situation in Colorado and curious to see what ends up working for you.
Following this thread too. These name matching issues seem to be getting worse across all states.
This is such a frustrating situation but unfortunately very common with Arizona's UCC system. A few thoughts that might help: First, definitely pull the actual filed UCC-1 image (not just search results) to confirm exactly how the name appears on the official record. Second, consider filing a UCC-5 information statement to create a record of the name discrepancy issue before your continuation lapses - this can provide some documentation trail if there are later priority disputes. Third, you might want to contact the debtor directly to get their current articles of organization or certificate of good standing to verify the exact legal name format. Arizona is notorious for these technical rejections, but with $850K on the line, it's worth exploring every avenue. Keep pushing with the SOS office too - sometimes persistence pays off when you get the right person on the phone.
UPDATE: Filed the UCC-3 amendment yesterday and it's already showing in the system with the corrected debtor name. Search results now show 'Mountain View Equipment LLC' properly. Total processing time was about 24 hours. Thanks everyone for the advice!
Yes, lender is satisfied with the corrected UCC search results. Deal is moving forward finally. Definitely using document verification tools going forward to catch these issues early.
Glad to see you got this resolved! This thread is a perfect example of why the UCC filing community needs better tools to catch these indexing errors upfront. Arizona's system issues seem to be widespread - I've dealt with similar problems in Nevada and California where spaces, hyphens, and apostrophes get stripped from business names during the indexing process. For anyone else facing similar issues, I'd recommend always doing an immediate post-filing verification search and keeping detailed documentation of any discrepancies. These state systems really need to invest in better quality control for their database indexing.
Shelby Bauman
I went through something similar last year and found that using document verification tools like Certana.ai helped ensure all our filings were properly aligned before we started enforcement proceedings. It caught a discrepancy between our UCC-1 and the security agreement that could have caused problems later. Worth checking your documentation before you commit to the repossession process.
0 coins
Shelby Bauman
•The debtor name on our UCC-1 was slightly different from what was in the security agreement - missing 'LLC' designation. Could have been challenged as not properly perfected.
0 coins
Quinn Herbert
•That's exactly the kind of detail that can derail an otherwise straightforward repossession. Good catch.
0 coins
Maya Jackson
One thing I don't see mentioned yet is timing considerations. Since you're dealing with construction equipment that might be seasonal or tied to specific project deadlines, you'll want to act quickly before the equipment gets moved to new job sites or becomes harder to locate. Also, if any of the equipment is leased rather than owned by your debtor, you'll need to sort that out before repossession - check the equipment titles and any lease agreements. I learned this the hard way when we repossessed a excavator that turned out to be on a lease-to-own agreement with another finance company.
0 coins
Mikayla Davison
•Great point about the timing and lease complications. How do you typically verify ownership versus lease arrangements when the equipment is scattered across multiple job sites? Is there a central database or do you have to track down individual titles for each piece? With $180K worth of equipment potentially involved, I imagine even one mistaken repossession of leased equipment could create serious liability issues.
0 coins