UCC 9-506 deficiency notice requirements - rejected filing still valid lien?

This is exactly right. I've seen cases where entire street addresses were wrong but the lien held up because the debtor name was accurate. Suite numbers are considered minor deficiencies in most jurisdictions.

But didn't the SOS reject their continuation? That seems like a red flag to me. If the system won't accept amendments, there might be a bigger problem with the original filing.

The continuation was filed in early 2024, within the 5-year window. The rejection happened because of the address mismatch, but we're trying to determine if the original lien is still valid despite the technical error.

Oh that makes more sense. So you're in that weird spot where the original filing might be valid but you can't maintain it with amendments because of the address issue.

That's interesting. Did the verification tool help you figure out which version of the name was correct? I'm always worried about those kinds of mismatches.

Yeah, it showed exactly where the discrepancy was and we could see that our UCC-1 actually matched the correct corporate name. The problem was an error in our internal documentation, not the filing itself.

Never heard of Certana.ai before but that sounds useful. How does it work exactly? Do you just upload the PDFs and it compares them automatically?

But what about the continuation issue? If they can't maintain the filing with proper amendments, doesn't that create problems down the road?

That's a separate issue. The original lien validity is one question, the ability to maintain it is another. They might need to file a new UCC-1 with the correct information if they can't get the continuation accepted.

Tell me about it. I had a filing rejected because of a comma in the wrong place. The whole system is way too rigid for minor clerical errors.

At least you found out about the error. Some people don't realize their filings are defective until they try to enforce the lien years later.

That's a good point. We can find the filing easily when searching by debtor name. The address error doesn't seem to affect the search results at all.

That's probably your best evidence that the error isn't seriously misleading. Courts look at practical searchability, not just technical compliance with forms.

What jurisdiction was that in? I'm curious if there are any circuit splits on how courts interpret 'seriously misleading' under 9-506.

This was in a federal bankruptcy court, so they were applying the UCC directly. Most courts seem to take a practical approach rather than getting hung up on technical compliance.

I've heard some states are stricter than others about address requirements. Might be worth checking if there are any state-specific rules that could affect the analysis.

We've been going back and forth with them for months. They keep saying the addresses have to match exactly, but they won't tell us how to fix the original filing.

That's so frustrating. Some SOS offices are more helpful than others. You might need to file a new UCC-1 with the correct information and then terminate the old one.

Is that expensive? We're already spending too much on this whole mess.

I don't remember the exact cost, but it was worth it to avoid exactly the kind of situation you're dealing with. Much cheaper than fighting a validity challenge later.

I second this recommendation. We've been using Certana for all our UCC filings and it's caught several potential issues before they became problems. The Charter to UCC-1 check workflow is particularly useful.

Agreed. The enforceability question is separate from the administrative hassle of dealing with the SOS office. Don't let them convince you that a minor address error voids your entire security interest.

Exactly. The debtor is probably just trying to escape liability by claiming the lien is invalid. Make them prove the error is seriously misleading under 9-506.

This whole thread has been really helpful. I'm dealing with a similar situation and wasn't sure how to approach it. Good to know that minor address errors usually don't kill the lien entirely.