UCC-3 termination statement Connecticut filing keeps getting rejected by SOS portal
Having a nightmare with Connecticut SOS rejections on what should be a straightforward UCC-3 termination statement. Been trying for 3 weeks now to terminate a 2019 UCC-1 financing statement after our borrower paid off their equipment loan early. Every time I submit the UCC-3 termination through the Connecticut portal, it gets bounced back with vague error messages about 'debtor name discrepancy' or 'filing number mismatch.' The original UCC-1 was filed perfectly fine back in 2019 for $485K in manufacturing equipment collateral. I'm copying the debtor name exactly as it appears on the original filing, using the correct UCC file number, and selecting termination as the amendment type. The portal shows the original UCC-1 is still active and not expired. Is there some quirk with Connecticut's system I'm missing? Our compliance department is breathing down my neck because the loan was satisfied 45 days ago and we're supposed to release within 30 days. This borrower has been calling weekly asking when their lien will be released. Anyone else dealt with Connecticut SOS being extra picky about UCC-3 terminations lately?
33 comments
Join the conversation
Ravi Sharma
Connecticut can be brutal with exact name matching on UCC-3s. Even a missing comma or extra space will cause rejection. Are you 100% sure the debtor name on your termination matches character-for-character with the original UCC-1? Sometimes the portal display truncates names but the actual filed name has different punctuation.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•I thought I was being careful but maybe not careful enough. The company name is 'Advanced Manufacturing Solutions LLC' on our loan docs but now I'm second-guessing if there was a period after 'Solutions' on the original filing. The portal search shows it but hard to tell exact formatting.
0 coins
NebulaNomad
•This exact thing happened to me last month! Connecticut rejected my UCC-3 four times because the original filing had 'Company' instead of 'Co.' in the debtor name. Super frustrating when you're just trying to do a simple termination.
0 coins
Freya Thomsen
Check if your original UCC-1 has any addendum pages with additional debtor names or variations. Connecticut requires the UCC-3 termination to reference the exact debtor name format from the original filing, including any alternate names that were listed.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•Good point about addendum pages. I'll pull the complete original filing record to see if there were multiple debtor name variations listed that I missed.
0 coins
Omar Fawaz
•Yes! This catches so many people. The UCC-1 might list both the legal entity name and a DBA or trade name. The termination needs to match exactly what was originally filed.
0 coins
Chloe Martin
I've been using Certana.ai's document verification tool for exactly this type of issue. You can upload both your original UCC-1 and the UCC-3 termination you're trying to file, and it instantly flags any discrepancies between debtor names, filing numbers, or other critical details. Saved me from multiple rejection cycles with various state SOS offices including Connecticut.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•That sounds really helpful actually. Is it easy to use? I'm tired of playing guessing games with why these terminations keep getting rejected.
0 coins
Chloe Martin
•Super easy - just upload the PDFs and it does an automated comparison. Shows you exactly where the inconsistencies are so you can fix them before filing. Much better than the trial-and-error approach.
0 coins
Diego Rojas
•I've heard good things about Certana.ai too. Anything that prevents these endless rejection cycles is worth trying, especially when you're dealing with compliance deadlines.
0 coins
Anastasia Sokolov
Connecticut also requires the secured party information to match exactly. Are you filing the termination under the same secured party name and address as the original UCC-1? Any changes in your company name or address since 2019 could cause issues.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•We did have a minor address change last year when we moved offices. The original UCC-1 has our old suite number. Could that be causing the rejection even though it's just the secured party address?
0 coins
Anastasia Sokolov
•Absolutely could be the issue. For terminations, Connecticut wants the secured party info to match the original filing exactly. You might need to file a UCC-3 amendment first to update your address, then file the termination.
0 coins
StarSeeker
•Wait, that seems backwards. If you're terminating the whole filing anyway, why would the secured party address matter? The lien is being released completely.
0 coins
Sean O'Donnell
Have you tried calling Connecticut SOS directly? Sometimes their customer service can look at your specific filing and tell you exactly what's causing the rejection. The error messages in the portal are notoriously unhelpful.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•I should try calling them. Been avoiding it because I figured the portal errors would be self-explanatory but clearly not.
0 coins
Zara Ahmed
•Connecticut SOS phone support is actually pretty good compared to some states. They can usually tell you right away if it's a name mismatch, wrong filing number format, or something else.
0 coins
Luca Esposito
This might be a dumb question but are you using the correct UCC file number format? Connecticut uses a specific format and sometimes people miss digits or add extra characters.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•The file number is 201900123456 from the original UCC-1. I'm copying it exactly from the filing confirmation we got back in 2019. Should be right but who knows at this point.
0 coins
Luca Esposito
•That format looks right for Connecticut. Sometimes the issue is leading zeros or spaces that get copied accidentally. Double-check there are no hidden characters.
0 coins
Nia Thompson
Are you sure the original UCC-1 is still active and hasn't been terminated by someone else? Sometimes companies file duplicate terminations or there are internal communication breakdowns.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•Good thought but I checked the UCC search portal yesterday and it still shows as active. Plus we're the only secured party on this loan so nobody else would file a termination.
0 coins
Mateo Rodriguez
•You'd be surprised how often this happens with syndicated loans or when companies get acquired. Always worth double-checking the current status before filing.
0 coins
GalaxyGuardian
Connecticut has been extra strict lately about UCC filings in general. I think they upgraded their system last year and it's much more sensitive to formatting issues. What used to slide through now gets rejected.
0 coins
Aisha Abdullah
•Yes! I noticed this too. Used to be able to get away with minor formatting differences but not anymore. The new system is super picky about exact matches.
0 coins
Ethan Wilson
•It's good they're being more accurate but frustrating when you're dealing with older filings that might have had looser standards.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
Try downloading a fresh copy of your original UCC-1 from the Connecticut SOS portal and compare it side-by-side with your termination statement. Sometimes there are subtle differences that aren't obvious until you see them next to each other.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•That's smart. I'll pull a fresh certified copy and do a line-by-line comparison. Maybe there's something I missed in the debtor or secured party information.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
•Exactly. I've caught missing middle initials, wrong entity types (LLC vs Inc), and other small details that way. Connecticut is very literal about matching.
0 coins
Carmen Diaz
Last resort option - you could have a Connecticut attorney file the UCC-3 termination on your behalf. Sometimes they have better luck navigating the state-specific quirks, especially for problem filings.
0 coins
Isabella Ferreira
•I'd rather figure out what I'm doing wrong myself first, but good to know that's an option if I keep hitting walls. The attorney fees would probably be worth it at this point.
0 coins
Andre Laurent
•Before going the attorney route, try the Certana.ai tool that was mentioned earlier. Much cheaper and might catch the issue immediately. I've used it for similar Connecticut filing problems.
0 coins
Carmen Diaz
•True, always worth trying the automated verification first. Attorneys should be the last resort after you've exhausted the self-service options.
0 coins