UCC Document Community

Update: Thanks everyone for the input. We decided to file the UCC-3 amendment first, then the continuation. Used that Certana.ai verification tool someone mentioned and it actually caught a small formatting issue in our amendment that could have caused problems. Everything went through smoothly and we maintained our perfected security interest without any gaps.

As a newcomer to UCC filings, this thread has been incredibly educational! I'm curious about timing requirements - when dealing with a debtor name change like this, is there a specific window within which you need to file the UCC-3 amendment? And does the timing of when the actual name change occurred (relative to your continuation deadline) affect the approach you should take? It seems like there could be different scenarios depending on whether the name change happened recently versus years ago.

This discussion has been incredibly valuable! As someone new to Tennessee UCC filings, I was definitely overthinking the fee structure. The $15 base + $1 per additional debtor formula is so much cleaner than what I've seen in other states. I especially appreciate the clarification that continuations and amendments are flat $15 regardless of debtor count - that's going to make client billing much more predictable. One quick follow-up question: when you're doing online filings, does Tennessee's system automatically calculate the total fees as you enter debtor information, or do you have to manually calculate before the final payment screen?

Really appreciate everyone's detailed responses here! This has cleared up my confusion completely. The $15 base + $1 per additional debtor structure is much simpler than I was making it out to be. Sounds like Tennessee is actually one of the more filer-friendly states once you understand the basics. I'm feeling much more confident about those three filings next week - $47 total based on my debtor count breakdown. The tip about the online system showing running fee calculations is particularly reassuring. Thanks for taking the time to share your real-world experience, especially the clarifications about amendments and continuations being flat $15. This community is incredibly helpful for navigating the nuances of multi-state UCC practice.

This is frustrating but unfortunately pretty common. A few things to check: 1) Make sure you're using the exact debtor name from the organizational documents - even spaces and punctuation matter. 2) If some equipment is bolted down, you might need fixture filings instead of regular UCCs. 3) Try breaking down the collateral description into more specific categories rather than the broad "manufacturing equipment" language. 4) Double-check that you're filing in the correct jurisdiction - sometimes multi-state deals require filings in multiple locations. The rejection notices are usually unhelpful, but persistence usually pays off once you identify the actual issue.

I've been through similar UCC filing headaches and it's maddening when you can't get clear answers from the filing office. A couple of thoughts based on what you've described: First, definitely verify whether any of that manufacturing equipment crosses the line into fixtures - CNC machines bolted to floors with utility connections often trigger fixture filing requirements, which would explain the 1-308.4 reference. Second, try submitting a test filing with just one piece of equipment to isolate whether it's a collateral description issue or something else entirely. Sometimes breaking down a complex filing helps identify the specific problem. Also, consider reaching out to other lenders who've done equipment financing in that state - they might have insights into local filing office quirks that aren't documented anywhere. The $850K loan size makes this worth getting expert help if needed rather than continuing to throw filings at the wall.

Glad it worked out! Illinois really needs to upgrade their search system. It's 2025 and we're still dealing with these basic technical problems.

This is such a common issue with Illinois! I've been doing UCC filings for about 8 years and their search database has always been unreliable. The key thing to remember is that your security interest is perfected from the moment of acceptance - that confirmation email is your legal proof. I always tell my clients to save that email as their primary evidence of filing. The search function is just a convenience tool, not the actual legal record. For future filings, I've found it helpful to call the UCC division a few days after filing to confirm everything is properly indexed, especially for high-value collateral like yours. Don't stress too much - you're protected!

UPDATE: We finally got it resolved! Turns out Delaware wanted the DocuSign signature to include the signer's title AND company name in the signature block, not just their name. Once we reformatted with 'John Smith, CFO, ABC Corp' instead of just 'John Smith' it went through immediately. Thanks everyone for the suggestions - definitely going to use that document verification tool someone mentioned for our next big filing to catch these formatting issues upfront.

This is such a valuable thread - thank you for the detailed update! As someone relatively new to UCC filings, I had no idea that Delaware required the signer's title and company name in the signature block. I've been using just names in my DocuSign blocks and would have run into the exact same issue. Definitely bookmarking this discussion and looking into that Certana.ai tool others mentioned to avoid these formatting pitfalls. It's frustrating that these requirements aren't clearly documented anywhere, but at least we can learn from each other's experiences here.