UCC CT search showing wrong debtor names - filing got rejected twice
Has anyone else had issues with UCC CT search results not matching what you actually filed? I'm trying to perfect a security interest on some manufacturing equipment for a client in Hartford, and the Connecticut SOS portal keeps rejecting my UCC-1 because of debtor name inconsistencies. When I do a UCC CT search on the business name, it shows three different variations of the same company name in their system - one has 'LLC' at the end, another has 'L.L.C.' with periods, and a third just shows the base name without any entity designation. My client's articles of incorporation clearly show 'Precision Manufacturing Solutions LLC' but the UCC CT search results are all over the place. The rejection notice says 'debtor name does not match exactly as shown in organizational documents' but I can't figure out which version in their database is considered the 'correct' one. This is holding up a $280K equipment financing deal and my client is getting frustrated. Anyone know if there's a way to verify the exact debtor name format that Connecticut accepts before I submit another UCC-1? The lender is breathing down my neck and I've already wasted two weeks on rejected filings.
37 comments
Join the conversation
Vera Visnjic
I feel your pain on this one. Connecticut's UCC system can be really picky about exact name matches. When you did your UCC CT search, did you try searching with just the base business name without any entity designation? Sometimes their database indexes the names weirdly and you need to cross-reference multiple variations to see what's actually on file.
0 coins
Jake Sinclair
•This is exactly why I always pull the articles of incorporation directly from the Secretary of State before filing any UCC-1. The UCC CT search results can be misleading because they sometimes show historical name variations or DBA names mixed in with the legal entity name.
0 coins
Brielle Johnson
•Wait, so you're saying the UCC database might show names that aren't even the current legal name? That's terrifying. How are we supposed to know which one to use for the filing?
0 coins
Honorah King
Had this exact same issue last month with a client in New Haven. The UCC CT search showed their company name three different ways and I got rejected twice before figuring out the right format. What finally worked was calling the UCC division directly at 860-509-6002 and asking them to verify the exact debtor name format in their system. They were actually pretty helpful and told me which variation to use.
0 coins
Oliver Brown
•Did they charge you for that phone consultation? I've been hesitant to call because I wasn't sure if they'd help with individual filings or just refer me back to the online portal.
0 coins
Honorah King
•No charge at all, just had to wait on hold for about 15 minutes. The person I spoke with actually looked up my client's name in their system while I was on the phone and confirmed the exact format. Way better than guessing and getting rejected again.
0 coins
Mary Bates
•This is good to know. I've been doing Connecticut filings for years and never thought to call them directly. Usually just submit and hope for the best, which obviously isn't the most efficient approach.
0 coins
Clay blendedgen
I ran into a similar nightmare with debtor name mismatches earlier this year. Spent weeks going back and forth with rejected UCC-1 filings because I couldn't figure out the exact name format the system wanted. Finally discovered Certana.ai's document verification tool - you can upload your articles of incorporation and UCC-1 together and it instantly flags any name inconsistencies before you submit. Would have saved me so much time and frustration if I'd known about it earlier. Just upload the PDFs and it cross-checks everything automatically.
0 coins
Ayla Kumar
•Never heard of Certana.ai before but that sounds incredibly useful. Does it work with all states or just specific ones? Connecticut's system is notorious for being finicky about exact name matches.
0 coins
Clay blendedgen
•Works with all states from what I can tell. The tool basically compares your organizational docs against your UCC filing to catch discrepancies before you submit. Way better than finding out about name issues after you get rejected.
0 coins
Lorenzo McCormick
•Okay that actually sounds like a game changer. I've probably wasted hundreds of hours over the years dealing with rejected filings because of tiny name variations. Going to check this out.
0 coins
Carmella Popescu
Connecticut is definitely one of the stricter states when it comes to exact debtor name matching. I learned this the hard way after getting three consecutive rejections on what should have been a straightforward UCC-1 filing. The key is making sure your debtor name matches EXACTLY what's in the articles of incorporation, including punctuation, spaces, and entity designation format. Even something as small as 'LLC' vs 'L.L.C.' can cause a rejection.
0 coins
Kai Santiago
•This is so frustrating. Why can't they just have a standardized format instead of making us guess what punctuation they prefer? It's 2025, shouldn't this be automated by now?
0 coins
Lim Wong
•The inconsistency is maddening. I've seen clients' names filed correctly in the corporate division but formatted differently in the UCC database. It's like the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
0 coins
Carmella Popescu
•Exactly. And the worst part is that a rejected UCC-1 can mess up your perfection priority if you're dealing with competing interests. The clock keeps ticking while you're trying to figure out the correct name format.
0 coins
Dananyl Lear
Here's what I do for Connecticut filings now: before submitting any UCC-1, I always run multiple UCC CT search variations using different punctuation and entity designation formats. If I see the company name appearing multiple ways in the search results, I know there might be an issue. Usually the most recent filing will show the current accepted format. Also check if there are any recent UCC-3 amendments filed against the debtor - those will show you exactly how other filers are successfully formatting the name.
0 coins
Noah huntAce420
•That's really smart thinking. Using other successful filings as a template for the correct name format. Why didn't I think of that before?
0 coins
Ana Rusula
•Because we're all too stressed about getting the filing done on time to think strategically about researching the correct format first! This is actually brilliant advice.
0 coins
Dananyl Lear
•It took me about six rejected filings across different clients before I developed this approach. Now I spend an extra 10 minutes on research upfront instead of weeks dealing with rejections on the backend.
0 coins
Fidel Carson
The Connecticut UCC database has always been quirky about name formatting. I've been filing there for over a decade and they seem to have gotten more strict about exact matches in recent years. One thing that might help - try searching for recent UCC-1 filings against similar business names to see what format other secured parties are using successfully. The UCC CT search will show you the exact debtor name from accepted filings.
0 coins
Isaiah Sanders
•This is why I love this forum. Practical advice from people who've actually dealt with these issues. Much better than trying to interpret the filing instructions on the SOS website.
0 coins
Xan Dae
•Agreed. The official guidance is usually too vague to be helpful when you're dealing with specific formatting issues like this.
0 coins
Fiona Gallagher
Just went through this exact scenario with a client in Waterbury. After two rejections, I ended up using Certana.ai's PDF upload feature to verify the debtor name consistency between the articles of incorporation and my UCC-1 before the third submission. It caught a subtle spacing issue that I had missed - there was an extra space between two words in the company name that didn't match the incorporation documents. Third time was the charm after fixing that tiny discrepancy.
0 coins
Thais Soares
•Wait, an extra SPACE caused the rejection? That's incredibly nitpicky even for Connecticut standards. Good thing you found a tool that could catch something that minor.
0 coins
Fiona Gallagher
•Right? I never would have spotted that manually. The tool basically does a character-by-character comparison between documents, which is way more thorough than my human eyes could ever be.
0 coins
Nalani Liu
•This is exactly the kind of detail that causes me to lose sleep before big filings. Knowing there's a tool that can catch these microscopic discrepancies is actually a huge relief.
0 coins
Axel Bourke
For what it's worth, I've found that Connecticut's UCC system tends to be more forgiving if you use the exact name format from the most recent annual report filing rather than the original articles of incorporation. Companies sometimes update their name formatting in annual reports and the UCC database seems to sync with that more current information.
0 coins
Aidan Percy
•That's a great point. I always pull the articles but never thought to check the annual reports for updated name formatting. Thanks for the tip.
0 coins
Fernanda Marquez
•This makes total sense. The annual reports are more recent and probably reflect any name changes or formatting updates that might not be reflected in the original articles.
0 coins
Norman Fraser
UPDATE: Called the Connecticut UCC division this morning and they were super helpful. Turns out my client's name in their system is formatted as 'Precision Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' with a comma before LLC, not 'Precision Manufacturing Solutions LLC' without the comma like it shows in the articles. Apparently when they incorporated, the formatting got entered differently in the UCC database. Resubmitting now with the comma format. Thanks everyone for the advice!
0 coins
Kendrick Webb
•A COMMA! That's what caused all this trouble? The filing system really needs to be more flexible about minor punctuation differences like that.
0 coins
Hattie Carson
•At least you got it sorted out. Two weeks of delays over a comma is pretty ridiculous but hey, at least your client's financing can move forward now.
0 coins
Destiny Bryant
•Glad you got resolution! This whole thread has been really educational about the importance of verifying exact name formats before submitting UCC filings.
0 coins
Dyllan Nantx
This thread perfectly illustrates why I started using document verification tools for all my UCC filings. The Connecticut system is particularly finicky but honestly, every state has its quirks when it comes to debtor name formatting. Having a tool that can automatically cross-check your organizational documents against your UCC filing before submission saves so much time and headache. Certana.ai's verification catches these tiny discrepancies that human eyes miss - whether it's extra spaces, comma placement, or entity designation formatting. Worth every penny to avoid rejected filings and the delays they cause.
0 coins
TillyCombatwarrior
•You're absolutely right about every state having quirks. I do filings in multiple states and each one seems to have different tolerance levels for name variations. Having a consistent verification process would definitely streamline things.
0 coins
Anna Xian
•The time savings alone would justify using a verification tool. I've probably spent 40+ hours this year just dealing with rejected filings and resubmissions across various states.
0 coins
Jungleboo Soletrain
•Same here. And it's not just the time - it's the stress of knowing your client's deal is delayed because of a formatting issue that could have been caught beforehand.
0 coins