Need Help with Maricopa County UCC Search - Debtor Name Variations Showing Different Results

That makes sense about the literal matching. The borrower has been operating under 3 different variations of their name over the past 5 years due to some restructuring. Should I be searching all three versions separately? I'm also seeing some filings that show 'TERMINATED' but the dates seem wrong - like showing termination dates that are after the original 5-year period would have expired anyway.

Yes, search all three name variations separately. Regarding those termination dates - that's actually normal. Even if a UCC-1 lapses after 5 years, creditors sometimes file UCC-3 terminations anyway for clean record keeping. The important thing is checking the effective period of each filing. If it's been more than 5 years since the original filing date AND there's no continuation statement, that lien is expired regardless of what the termination shows.

I didn't even think about fixture filings! This is manufacturing equipment that gets bolted to the concrete floor. Should I be doing a separate fixtures search in the real estate records too?

For manufacturing equipment that's permanently attached, absolutely check for fixture filings. Those would be in the real estate records, not the regular UCC database. If there's already a fixture filing on that equipment, it could have priority over your regular UCC-1 depending on when it was filed.

This is why I always do fixture searches for any equipment over $100k. Had a deal blow up last year because we missed a fixture filing that was recorded 18 months earlier. The equipment was already encumbered and we didn't catch it until after closing.

I haven't heard of that tool. How does it work exactly? Does it just check the documents you upload or does it also search the state databases?

You upload PDFs of the documents you want to verify - like existing UCC filings you found, articles of incorporation, your proposed UCC-1, etc. It cross-checks everything for name consistency, collateral descriptions, and potential conflicts. It doesn't search the databases for you, but once you've gathered the filings through your own searches, it helps verify that everything aligns properly. Really useful for catching those subtle name variations that could cause problems.

I know it's annoying, but the literal matching is actually required by the UCC statute. The system has to show exactly what was filed, not what it thinks you meant to search for. It's about legal precision rather than convenience.

I get that but it makes the whole process so much more complicated than it needs to be. especially when you're dealing with borrowers who have changed their business names multiple times

Good point about successor entities. This borrower did go through a restructuring 2 years ago where they formed a new LLC and transferred assets. I should probably search the old entity name too in case any liens weren't properly assigned.

Exactly. If assets were transferred but UCC assignments weren't filed, you could have orphaned liens under the old entity name that still attach to the equipment. Always search both the current and any predecessor entity names.

This happened to us on a $2M credit facility. Found 3 additional UCC filings under the predecessor LLC name that never got assigned to the new entity. Had to get releases on all of them before we could close.

That's what I'm worried about. If I file our UCC-1 using the exact name from their current articles of incorporation, but there are existing liens filed under slightly different variations, does that create a perfection problem for us?

It depends on whether the name variations are 'seriously misleading' under UCC Article 9. Minor differences like punctuation usually won't invalidate perfection, but if the name variation would prevent someone from finding the filing in a reasonable search, that could be a problem. This is exactly the kind of analysis where having all the documents checked for consistency becomes crucial.

Good catch! I should be checking addresses and EIN numbers on all these filings. Some of them do show different addresses, so they might not all be for the same borrower.

Exactly. Cross-reference everything - addresses, tax ID numbers, even the described collateral. Sometimes you'll find filings that match the name but are clearly for different businesses.

I hadn't thought about amendments changing the collateral description. How do I search for UCC-3s that relate to specific UCC-1 filings?

In Arizona, UCC-3 amendments should reference the original filing number of the UCC-1 they're amending. You can search by that filing number to see all related amendments, or sometimes they show up in the same search results as the original filing.

That's really smart. Looking at the patterns in how other creditors named the debtor could give me clues about the 'correct' legal name format to use.

Right, and if you see most recent filings using one format while older ones use different formats, that might indicate the business changed its legal name at some point. The newer format is probably what you want to use.

That sounds exactly like what I need. With $450k on the line, I want to be absolutely sure I'm not missing anything or filing incorrectly.

Yeah, for that size deal it's worth the peace of mind. The tool caught a subtle discrepancy between how the debtor name appeared in one existing filing versus their actual articles of incorporation that I probably would have missed doing it manually.

Glad you caught that before filing! The punctuation variant issue is exactly why systematic searching is so important. How did you handle the partial release process?

The existing lender was actually cooperative once we explained the situation. They filed a UCC-3 partial release excluding the specific equipment we needed to finance. Took about a week to get it recorded, but now we're clear to file our UCC-1.

Perfect resolution. This is a great example of why thorough UCC searches are so critical before filing. Missing that active filing could have created a priority dispute later.