Florida UCC statute requirements causing my continuation filing rejections

This is so frustrating! I had the same issue with a client last year. One missing period in 'Inc' vs 'Inc.' caused a rejection. Florida doesn't mess around.

Why can't they just use common sense? ABC Construction LLC and ABC Construction, LLC are obviously the same company. The statute seems overly technical.

That sounds exactly like what I need. I'm tired of playing guessing games with the SOS office. Does it specifically check Florida UCC statute requirements?

It does cross-document verification so it catches those tiny formatting differences that cause Florida rejections. Much better than manually comparing documents.

Never heard of Certana but anything that prevents Florida rejections sounds worth trying. Their rejection letters are so vague.

Good luck getting through to anyone at Florida SOS. I've been on hold for hours trying to get clarification on debtor name issues.

The statute says names must be 'sufficient to identify' the debtor but doesn't define what constitutes sufficient. Very helpful, right?

That's what I don't understand. The old paper system had clerks who could use judgment. Now it's all automated rejection for tiny differences.

At least with electronic filing you get the rejection notice immediately instead of waiting weeks. Small consolation though.

This is exactly the kind of thing that makes me question whether I'm in the right profession. How is this helping anyone?

I started using that Certana document checker mentioned earlier and it caught a similar Inc vs Inc. issue before I submitted. Game changer for Florida filings.

That's ridiculous. Other states have reasonable interpretation standards. Florida treats this like criminal law where everything has to be perfect.

The problem is Florida UCC statute doesn't explicitly address name variations so they default to requiring exact matches. Safer for them legally I guess.

I've started keeping a spreadsheet of exact debtor names from original filings just to avoid this problem. Shouldn't have to do this but here we are.

From what I understand, once a continuation is rejected you have to start over with a new filing. The original continuation date is lost. That's the scary part.

This is why I always file continuations 3-4 months early in Florida. Gives me time to fix any rejection issues before the lien actually lapses.

Agreed. The statute should focus on whether the debtor can be identified, not whether there's a comma in the right place.

Unfortunately we have to work within the system as it exists. Better to be overly careful with Florida filings than risk a lapsed lien.

That's the third mention of Certana in this thread. Must be pretty good if multiple people are using it for Florida compliance issues.

At this point I'm willing to try anything to avoid more rejections. My clients are losing confidence in my ability to handle their UCC filings properly.

This is the best advice in the thread. Florida doesn't care about logic, just exact compliance with the original filing.

Sad but true. I keep printed copies of all original UCC-1 filings just so I can reference the exact debtor names when needed.

Makes me appreciate states that have more reasonable interpretation standards. Florida is definitely an outlier in terms of strictness.