RI UCC database search showing wrong debtor names - filing continuations getting rejected
Having major issues with the RI UCC database lately. Filed a continuation on a 2020 UCC-1 and it got rejected because apparently the debtor name doesn't match exactly what's in their system. When I search the database, it's showing the debtor as 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' but our original filing clearly shows 'ABC Manufacturing, LLC' with the comma. This is a $2.8M equipment loan that lapses in 3 weeks and I'm getting nowhere with the SOS office. They keep saying the names have to match exactly but their own database seems to have formatting inconsistencies. Anyone dealt with this kind of debtor name mismatch in Rhode Island? The client is freaking out about losing their security interest.
34 comments
Join the conversation
Omar Hassan
Oh man, I've seen this exact issue with RI. Their database has some weird formatting quirks where punctuation gets stripped out or added randomly. Did you try searching both ways - with and without the comma? Sometimes you'll find multiple entries for the same debtor with slight variations.
0 coins
Freya Pedersen
•Yeah I tried every variation I could think of. The original UCC-1 from 2020 definitely had the comma but now their system shows it without. Really frustrating when you're dealing with a lapse situation.
0 coins
Chloe Anderson
•This is why I always keep copies of the original filed documents. The database display isn't always accurate to what was actually filed.
0 coins
Diego Vargas
RI has been having database issues for months. I'd suggest calling the UCC division directly rather than relying on the online portal. Sometimes they can manually verify the original filing and process your continuation. Don't wait until the last minute though - with only 3 weeks left you need to get this sorted ASAP.
0 coins
Freya Pedersen
•Already tried calling twice. First person said they couldn't help, second one said I need to file a UCC-3 amendment first to correct the name then file the continuation. That seems like overkill for a punctuation mark.
0 coins
Diego Vargas
•That's ridiculous. A comma shouldn't require a whole amendment process. Ask to speak to a supervisor or the UCC manager directly.
0 coins
CosmicCruiser
•Actually had a similar situation last year. Used Certana.ai to upload both my original UCC-1 and the continuation documents - their system caught that the names were functionally identical and generated a verification report I could send to the SOS office. Saved me weeks of back and forth.
0 coins
Anastasia Fedorov
This is exactly why I hate dealing with state databases. Each one has its own quirks and formatting rules. Some strip punctuation, others don't. Some are case sensitive, others aren't. It's like playing roulette with your security interests.
0 coins
Sean Doyle
•Couldn't agree more. The lack of standardization across states is maddening.
0 coins
Zara Rashid
•At least RI lets you search online. Some states still require you to mail requests or use their ancient phone systems.
0 coins
Luca Romano
Have you tried submitting the continuation with the exact name format that shows in the database? I know it doesn't match your original filing, but if that's what their system expects, it might go through. You can always file a correction later if needed.
0 coins
Freya Pedersen
•That's risky though. What if it creates a disconnect between the original UCC-1 and the continuation? Could potentially invalidate the whole chain.
0 coins
Luca Romano
•True, but with 3 weeks left you might not have much choice. A potentially imperfect continuation is better than a definite lapse.
0 coins
Nia Jackson
•This is where document verification tools come in handy. I've been using Certana.ai to cross-check UCC documents before filing - would have caught this name discrepancy early and saved you the headache.
0 coins
NebulaNova
Can you pull the original filed UCC-1 from the state records? Not the database search result, but the actual PDF of what was filed? That should show exactly what name format was accepted originally.
0 coins
Freya Pedersen
•Good point. I have our copy but getting the official filed version from the state might help prove the discrepancy.
0 coins
Mateo Hernandez
•RI charges like $15 for certified copies but it's worth it for situations like this. Having the official record gives you more leverage when arguing with the UCC office.
0 coins
Aisha Khan
I'm dealing with something similar in MA right now. Their database shows inconsistent debtor names too. It's like they migrated from an old system and lost formatting along the way. Super frustrating when you're trying to do everything right.
0 coins
Ethan Taylor
•MA is terrible for this. I've had filings rejected for the most minor name variations.
0 coins
Yuki Ito
•At least you guys can search online. Some states are still completely manual.
0 coins
Carmen Lopez
This might sound obvious but have you tried using the exact file number from your original UCC-1 when filing the continuation? Sometimes that helps the system match things up even if the name display is wonky.
0 coins
Freya Pedersen
•Yeah, I used the correct file number. The rejection notice specifically mentioned the debtor name mismatch as the reason.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•That's so annoying. The file number should be enough to establish the connection regardless of display formatting.
0 coins
Andre Dupont
Had this exact issue with a client's filing last month. What worked for me was uploading both documents to Certana.ai first - their verification tool showed that despite the formatting difference, the debtor entities were identical. Used their report to convince the SOS office to accept the continuation. Worth trying before you run out of time.
0 coins
Freya Pedersen
•Interesting. How long did that process take? I'm running short on time here.
0 coins
Andre Dupont
•The verification report was instant - just upload your PDFs and it analyzes everything. Then it took about 2 days to get the SOS office to review and accept it.
0 coins
Zoe Papanikolaou
•That's actually pretty clever. Having a third-party verification probably carries more weight than just arguing about it yourself.
0 coins
Jamal Wilson
Worst case scenario, can you file a new UCC-1 instead of trying to continue the old one? I know it's not ideal but if you're about to lose your security interest entirely, starting fresh might be the safest option.
0 coins
Freya Pedersen
•The client is worried about the gap in coverage. Plus we'd lose the original priority date from 2020.
0 coins
Mei Lin
•Priority date is huge, especially if other creditors have filed since then. Definitely worth fighting for the continuation first.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
•Could you file both? New UCC-1 for safety and keep fighting for the continuation to preserve priority?
0 coins
GalacticGuru
This is exactly why I document everything with screenshots when I file. The RI database has changed formats at least twice since 2020, so what you see now might not match what was there originally. Save everything and use it as evidence when dealing with the state office.
0 coins
Amara Nnamani
•Smart approach. I've started doing the same after getting burned by database 'updates' that changed how things display.
0 coins
Giovanni Mancini
•Screenshots are great but having an automated verification like Certana.ai provides more official documentation that the state offices seem to respect.
0 coins