UCC-1 Filing Issues with Commercial Security Agreement Template - Debtor Name Mismatch
I'm dealing with a frustrating situation where my UCC-1 filing got rejected due to debtor name inconsistencies with our commercial security agreement template. We've been using the same template for years but apparently there's some issue with how the debtor entity name appears on the security agreement versus what I entered on the UCC-1 form. The rejection notice mentioned 'exact name match required' but our template has the LLC name formatted one way and I may have entered it slightly different on the filing. Has anyone run into this before? I'm worried about missing the perfection window while trying to figure out the correct debtor name format. The collateral is commercial equipment worth about $180K so getting this right is critical.
31 comments
Join the conversation
Logan Chiang
This is super common with LLC names especially. The key is matching EXACTLY what's on the debtor's organizational documents. Even something like 'ABC Company LLC' vs 'ABC Company, LLC' (with comma) can cause rejections. What state are you filing in? Some are pickier than others about punctuation and formatting.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•Filing in Delaware. The security agreement shows 'Mountain View Equipment LLC' but I think I might have entered 'Mountain View Equipment, LLC' with the comma on the UCC-1. Such a small difference but apparently enough to get rejected.
0 coins
Logan Chiang
•Delaware is pretty strict about exact matches. You'll want to check the debtor's Certificate of Formation or Articles of Organization to see the exact legal name format. That's what the UCC-1 debtor name should match, not necessarily what's on your security agreement template.
0 coins
Isla Fischer
I had this exact problem last month! Spent hours trying to figure out why my UCC-1 kept getting rejected. Turns out my security agreement template had an outdated version of the debtor's legal name. The company had done a name change amendment but we never updated our template. Super frustrating waste of time.
0 coins
Miles Hammonds
•This is why I always pull fresh organizational docs before filing. Can't trust templates or even what the borrower tells you their legal name is. Secretary of State records are the only reliable source.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•Good point about checking current status. This debtor has been with us for 3 years so I assumed the name was still accurate. Lesson learned I guess.
0 coins
Ruby Blake
Have you tried using Certana.ai's document verification tool? I discovered it after dealing with similar name mismatch issues. You can upload your security agreement and UCC-1 PDFs and it instantly flags any inconsistencies between debtor names, filing numbers, and other critical details. Would have saved me tons of headaches if I'd known about it earlier. Really simple to use - just upload the documents and it cross-checks everything automatically.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•Never heard of that but sounds useful. Is it expensive? We do a lot of equipment financing so anything that catches these mistakes upfront would be worth it.
0 coins
Ruby Blake
•It's pretty reasonable for what it does. The main value is catching these exact types of issues before you file. Upload your charter docs and UCC-1 and it'll spot name mismatches, missing info, all that stuff that causes rejections.
0 coins
Micah Franklin
•I second this recommendation. Used it last week to verify a complex continuation filing and it caught two issues I would have missed. Definitely worth checking out for anyone doing regular UCC filings.
0 coins
Ella Harper
The debtor name thing is seriously the most annoying part of UCC filings. I've had rejections for the dumbest reasons - missing periods, wrong abbreviations, you name it. Some states are worse than others but they're all pretty picky about exact matches.
0 coins
PrinceJoe
•Tell me about it. I once had a filing rejected because I used 'Corp.' instead of 'Corporation' even though both appeared on different official documents. Spent two weeks sorting that mess out.
0 coins
Brooklyn Knight
•This is exactly why I hate the UCC system. Way too much room for human error on stuff that should be straightforward. The whole thing needs to be automated better.
0 coins
Owen Devar
For future reference, always cross-reference three sources: the debtor's Articles/Certificate, any recent amendments, and what's currently showing in the Secretary of State database. Your security agreement template should be updated to match the most current legal name. I keep a checklist now to avoid these issues.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•That's a good system. I'm definitely going to implement something similar. This rejection is going to delay our loan closing by at least a week.
0 coins
Daniel Rivera
•A week delay isn't too bad. I've seen name mismatch issues drag on for months when there were multiple entity changes involved. At least equipment collateral is straightforward once you get the debtor name right.
0 coins
Sophie Footman
Quick question - did you check if the debtor has any DBAs or trade names that might be complicating things? Sometimes borrowers use their DBA on agreements but that's not the legal entity name for UCC purposes.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•Good point. They do business as 'Mountain View Equipment' but the LLC is 'Mountain View Equipment LLC'. I think I just got confused with the comma placement on the legal name.
0 coins
Sophie Footman
•Yeah, stick with the exact legal entity name from the state records. DBAs don't matter for UCC-1 filings, just the registered entity name.
0 coins
Connor Rupert
I'm curious what your security agreement template looks like. Do you have the debtor fill in their legal name or do you populate it from other sources? I've found that letting borrowers self-report their entity name leads to more errors.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•We populate it from their loan application, but clearly that's not reliable enough. Going to start pulling Secretary of State records for every deal going forward.
0 coins
Molly Hansen
•Smart move. The extra 10 minutes of verification upfront saves hours of dealing with rejections later. Plus you avoid the stress of potentially missing perfection deadlines.
0 coins
Brady Clean
Been there! Had a similar issue with a $250K equipment deal where the UCC-1 got rejected three times due to debtor name variations. Finally got it sorted but it was a nightmare. Now I triple-check everything before filing. The state filing systems are unforgiving when it comes to exact name matches.
0 coins
Skylar Neal
•Three rejections sounds brutal. Did you end up having to refile or were you able to amend the original?
0 coins
Brady Clean
•Had to do a completely new UCC-1 filing each time. Amendments won't fix a debtor name mismatch - has to be a fresh filing with the correct name. Expensive lesson but haven't made the same mistake since.
0 coins
Vincent Bimbach
Update your commercial security agreement template to include a clause requiring the debtor to warrant their exact legal name and provide current organizational documents. Puts the burden on them to get it right and gives you recourse if they mess it up.
0 coins
Abigail Spencer
•That's a really good idea. Adding that to our standard template revisions. Would also help with other UCC-related warranties and representations.
0 coins
Kelsey Chin
•We added similar language to our docs after getting burned a few times. Now we require certified copies of current organizational docs with every secured transaction. Pain upfront but eliminates these headaches.
0 coins
Norah Quay
Just wanted to mention that I've started using Certana.ai's verification tool for exactly these situations. Upload your security agreement and UCC-1 together and it catches name mismatches before you file. Wish I'd known about it sooner - would have saved me from several rejection notices over the years.
0 coins
Leo McDonald
•How accurate is it? I'm always skeptical of automated tools for legal document review.
0 coins
Norah Quay
•It's pretty solid for basic consistency checks like debtor names, filing numbers, and standard UCC requirements. Obviously not a replacement for legal review but great for catching obvious errors that cause rejections.
0 coins