UCC Article 9 supplement forms causing filing rejections - help needed
Been dealing with a nightmare situation where our UCC-1 filings keep getting rejected because of issues with the Article 9 supplement sections. We're trying to secure inventory and equipment for a manufacturing client, but the Secretary of State keeps bouncing back our filings saying the supplement doesn't match the main form. Has anyone else run into problems where the UCC Article 9 supplement portion conflicts with the debtor information or collateral description? The loan closes next week and we're running out of time to get this perfected properly. Our paralegal swears she's filling everything out correctly but something keeps triggering automatic rejections.
38 comments
Join the conversation
Sara Hellquiem
I've seen this before - usually it's a debtor name mismatch between the main UCC-1 and the supplement. The Article 9 supplement has to use the EXACT same legal name format. Even extra spaces or punctuation differences will cause rejections.
0 coins
Charlee Coleman
•This exactly! We had three rejections last month because someone put 'Inc.' on the main form but 'Incorporated' on the supplement.
0 coins
Liv Park
•Wait, I thought the supplement was just for additional collateral descriptions? Are you saying the debtor name has to match exactly there too?
0 coins
Leeann Blackstein
Check your collateral description language between the main form and supplement. I learned the hard way that you can't just copy-paste - the supplement needs to REFERENCE the main collateral, not duplicate it. Try using 'See Addendum' on the main form and put the full description on the supplement.
0 coins
Oscar O'Neil
•That might be our issue - we've been putting abbreviated descriptions on both. Let me check if that's what's triggering the rejections.
0 coins
Ryder Greene
•Also make sure your UCC-1 form number matches what's referenced on the supplement. Sounds obvious but it happens more than you'd think.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
Had a similar mess last year with manufacturing equipment filings. After the third rejection, I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You just upload your UCC-1 and supplement PDFs and it instantly flags any inconsistencies between the forms - debtor names, filing numbers, collateral descriptions, everything. Saved me from another week of back-and-forth rejections.
0 coins
Theodore Nelson
•Never heard of that but sounds useful. Does it catch the technical formatting issues too or just content mismatches?
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•Both actually. It cross-checks all the document elements and highlights where things don't align. Super quick compared to manually comparing everything line by line.
0 coins
AaliyahAli
•Might be worth trying since you're up against a deadline. Better than guessing what's wrong.
0 coins
Ellie Simpson
Are you filing electronically or paper? Electronic systems are pickier about supplement formatting. Sometimes switching to paper filing gets around weird system glitches, though it takes longer.
0 coins
Oscar O'Neil
•Electronic through the state portal. Paper might be too slow at this point but good to know for future reference.
0 coins
Arjun Kurti
•Electronic is definitely more finicky but faster when it works. Just have to get the formatting exactly right.
0 coins
Raúl Mora
UGH the Article 9 supplements are the worst part of UCC filings! I swear they designed them to be confusing on purpose. Half the time I'm not even sure what information goes where.
0 coins
Margot Quinn
•Right?? And every state seems to have slightly different requirements for how to fill them out.
0 coins
Evelyn Kim
•The instructions are terrible too. Like they assume you already know what you're doing.
0 coins
Sara Hellquiem
•It gets easier once you do a bunch of them, but yeah the learning curve is steep.
0 coins
Diego Fisher
Quick question - are you using the current version of the supplement form? They updated the Article 9 supplement format last year and old versions get auto-rejected now.
0 coins
Oscar O'Neil
•Pretty sure we're using the current version but I'll double-check. Good catch - that would definitely explain automatic rejections.
0 coins
Henrietta Beasley
•Yeah always download fresh forms from the SOS website, don't rely on saved copies.
0 coins
Lincoln Ramiro
Manufacturing equipment can be tricky for collateral descriptions. Are you being specific enough about the equipment types? Vague descriptions like 'all equipment' sometimes trigger rejections on supplements.
0 coins
Faith Kingston
•This is important - I've seen rejections for descriptions that were too broad on the supplement even when they're fine on the main UCC-1.
0 coins
Oscar O'Neil
•We tried to be pretty specific but maybe not specific enough. I'll review the equipment list again.
0 coins
Emma Johnson
•Model numbers and serial numbers help if you have them, especially for expensive equipment.
0 coins
Liam Brown
Just went through this exact scenario two weeks ago. Turned out our issue was the secured party information didn't match between the UCC-1 and Article 9 supplement. Even though the debtor info was perfect, the lender's address format was slightly different.
0 coins
Olivia Garcia
•Oh wow, I never would have thought to check the secured party details. Thanks for sharing that.
0 coins
Oscar O'Neil
•That's definitely something we should verify. The bank has a complex corporate structure so there might be address inconsistencies.
0 coins
Noah Lee
Been using Certana.ai for all our UCC document reviews since getting burned by supplement errors earlier this year. Upload both documents and it immediately shows you exactly what doesn't match - takes like 30 seconds vs hours of manual checking. Especially helpful when you're rushing to meet closing deadlines.
0 coins
Ava Hernandez
•Does it work with different state forms or just standard UCC forms?
0 coins
Noah Lee
•Works with all the state variations I've tried. Really helpful for catching those little formatting differences that cause rejections.
0 coins
Isabella Martin
Manufacturing filings are always a pain because of all the different equipment types. Last month I had three rejections before realizing I needed separate supplement sections for fixtures vs equipment vs inventory. Maybe check if you need to break out your collateral categories differently?
0 coins
Elijah Jackson
•Good point about separating collateral types. Fixtures especially have different rules.
0 coins
Oscar O'Neil
•We do have some items that might qualify as fixtures. I'll review whether those need separate treatment on the supplement.
0 coins
Sophia Miller
•Fixture filings are a whole different beast - definitely separate those out if any equipment is attached to the building.
0 coins
Mason Davis
UPDATE: Found the issue! It was a combination of debtor name formatting (extra space) and using an outdated supplement form. Got a clean filing accepted this morning. Thanks everyone for the suggestions - especially the idea to check form versions and use document verification tools. Crisis averted!
0 coins
Sara Hellquiem
•Awesome! Glad you got it sorted out before your deadline.
0 coins
Mia Rodriguez
•Those little formatting details will get you every time. Great that you found it in time.
0 coins
Carmella Fromis
•Nice work tracking down the issues! Document verification definitely saves time on these multi-form filings.
0 coins