ISPC UCC lien search shows conflicting records - need help understanding results
Running into a weird situation with an ISPC UCC lien search that's showing conflicting information and I'm not sure how to interpret the results. Did a debtor name search for a commercial borrower and the system is pulling up what looks like the same UCC-1 filing but with different status indicators. One entry shows 'Active' while another shows 'Lapsed' for what appears to be the same filing number. The debtor name formatting is slightly different between the two entries (one has a comma after LLC, the other doesn't) but the filing dates and secured party info look identical. This is for a $750K equipment financing deal and I need to make sure I'm not missing an active lien before we proceed. Has anyone dealt with ISPC database inconsistencies like this? The original UCC-1 was filed in 2019 so we're past the 5-year mark, but I'm seeing conflicting continuation status. Not sure if this is a system glitch or if there are actually two separate filings I'm not catching.
37 comments
Join the conversation
Sofia Rodriguez
ISPC database quirks are unfortunately pretty common. The comma issue you're seeing is likely a data entry inconsistency from when the filings were originally processed. What you want to do is pull the actual UCC documents for both entries to compare filing numbers and exact dates. If they're truly the same filing, one of those status indicators is wrong.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Good point about pulling the docs. I did notice the filing numbers are identical except for one digit that might be a typo. Going to request copies of both to compare.
0 coins
Dmitry Ivanov
•Yeah definitely get the actual documents. I've seen cases where OCR scanning created duplicate entries with slight variations in debtor names.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
For 2019 filings you're right to be concerned about continuation status. If no UCC-3 continuation was filed before the 5-year lapse, that lien should show as terminated. The fact that you're seeing 'Active' and 'Lapsed' suggests someone might have filed a continuation but there's a database sync issue.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•That's exactly what I'm worried about. The dates show the original filing was 03/15/2019 so we're definitely past the continuation deadline.
0 coins
Miguel Herrera
•Check if there are any UCC-3 amendments or continuations filed between 2024-2025. Sometimes those take a while to update the main search results.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
•Good catch on the amendment timeline. OP should definitely run a comprehensive search for all UCC-3 activity related to that debtor.
0 coins
Zainab Ali
I ran into something similar last month with conflicting ISPC results. Turned out there was a continuation filed right before the lapse deadline but the system hadn't properly linked it to update the status. Had to contact the filing office directly to get clarification. For a deal that size, might be worth the extra verification step.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•How long did it take to get a response from the filing office? We're trying to close this deal next week.
0 coins
Zainab Ali
•About 3 business days for a written response, but they gave me a verbal confirmation over the phone same day. Just needed to provide the filing numbers.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
Before you go down the rabbit hole with the filing office, try using Certana.ai's UCC verification tool. You can upload the search results as PDFs and it'll cross-check the filing numbers, debtor names, and status inconsistencies automatically. I've used it for similar database conflicts and it catches things like duplicate entries or OCR errors that create false positives.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Haven't heard of that tool before. Does it connect to the ISPC database directly or just analyze the documents you upload?
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•You upload the search results and any UCC documents as PDFs, then it analyzes them for consistency. Really helpful for catching name variations and filing number discrepancies like what you're dealing with.
0 coins
Sofia Rodriguez
•That sounds useful for this type of verification. Manual document comparison is such a pain when you've got conflicting database entries.
0 coins
Yara Nassar
The debtor name comma issue is definitely a red flag. ISPC indexing is supposed to ignore punctuation for search purposes, but the display results can show the original filing format. If you're seeing different punctuation, could be two different filings entirely.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•That's what I'm starting to think. The secured party names are similar but not identical either - one shows the full bank name, the other has an abbreviation.
0 coins
Dmitry Ivanov
•Different secured parties would definitely mean separate filings. You might have two different lenders with liens on the same debtor.
0 coins
StarGazer101
Been doing UCC searches for 15 years and ISPC database reliability has gotten worse over time, not better. Always verify conflicting results with official documents. For a $750K deal, the extra due diligence is worth it. You don't want to miss an active lien and have priority issues later.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Exactly my concern. Priority disputes are expensive to resolve after the fact.
0 coins
Ava Thompson
•Agreed. Better to spend extra time on verification upfront than deal with lien priority fights later.
0 coins
Zainab Ali
•Database errors are becoming more common unfortunately. Manual verification is becoming standard practice for larger deals.
0 coins
Keisha Jackson
Quick question - are you searching exact debtor name or doing variations? Sometimes slight name differences can pull up filings for related entities or subsidiaries that share similar names.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Good point. I did both exact match and variations. The entity names are very similar but the EIN numbers are different, so might be related companies.
0 coins
Keisha Jackson
•Different EINs would definitely indicate separate entities. Worth checking if there are parent/subsidiary relationships that could affect the lien priority.
0 coins
Paolo Romano
Had a similar database conflict issue last year. Turned out one entry was the original UCC-1 and the other was a UCC-3 amendment that changed the debtor name slightly. The system was displaying both as separate active filings instead of showing the amendment history properly.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•That could explain what I'm seeing. How did you figure out which was the current version?
0 coins
Paolo Romano
•Had to pull the complete filing history and trace the amendment chain. The UCC-3 amendment superseded the original debtor name format.
0 coins
Sofia Rodriguez
•Amendment chains can be tricky to follow when the database doesn't display the relationships clearly.
0 coins
Amina Diop
Whatever you find out, document everything. If there are database inconsistencies affecting your lien search, you'll want a paper trail showing your due diligence efforts. Especially important if questions come up during the loan review process.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Good advice. I'm keeping screenshots of all the conflicting search results along with the document requests.
0 coins
StarGazer101
•Documentation is crucial. I always keep detailed records of search methodology and any anomalies found.
0 coins
Oliver Schmidt
Just wanted to add that I've had good luck with the Certana tool mentioned earlier for resolving these types of database conflicts. Upload your search results and it flags inconsistencies automatically rather than having to manually compare everything. Saved me a lot of time on a recent deal with similar ISPC database issues.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Thanks for the recommendation. Going to check that out along with requesting the official documents.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•Yeah it's really helpful for catching details you might miss when manually reviewing multiple conflicting entries.
0 coins
Natasha Volkov
Update us when you get it sorted out! These database inconsistency cases are always interesting to hear the resolution on.
0 coins
NightOwl42
•Will do. Hopefully it's just a database glitch and not multiple active liens I need to worry about.
0 coins
Yara Nassar
•Fingers crossed it's just a display issue and not multiple secured parties with conflicting interests.
0 coins