UCC Westlaw search results showing conflicting filing records - how to verify actual status?
I'm dealing with a confusing situation where our Westlaw UCC search is pulling up what appears to be contradictory filing information for the same debtor. The search shows a UCC-1 filed in 2019 that should have lapsed by now, but there's also a continuation statement from 2024 that references a slightly different filing number. The debtor name variations are also inconsistent across the records (Smith Construction LLC vs Smith Construction, LLC vs Smith Constr LLC). Our loan committee is asking for clarification before we approve a new secured loan, but I can't determine which filings are actually effective. Has anyone encountered Westlaw UCC searches returning mixed results like this? I need to understand if this is a database sync issue or if there are actual multiple filings I'm missing. Time is critical since we're supposed to close this deal next week.
35 comments
Join the conversation
LordCommander
Westlaw's UCC database can definitely show inconsistencies, especially with debtor name variations. The different LLC punctuation you're seeing is super common - some states accept filings with or without commas in entity names. First thing I'd do is go directly to the Secretary of State's website for that jurisdiction and run the search there. The SOS database is always the official record.
0 coins
Lucy Lam
•This is exactly right. Westlaw aggregates from multiple sources and sometimes there's lag time or formatting differences. Always verify through the actual SOS portal for the definitive answer.
0 coins
Aidan Hudson
•But what if the SOS portal is down or giving errors? We've had that happen multiple times this month and loan deadlines don't wait for government websites to work properly.
0 coins
Zoe Wang
I've seen this exact scenario before. The filing number discrepancies could mean someone filed a UCC-3 continuation but referenced the wrong initial filing number. If the continuation doesn't properly link to the original UCC-1, it might not be legally effective. You really need to trace each document individually to see if they actually connect properly.
0 coins
Connor Richards
•Oh wow, I never thought about continuation statements referencing wrong filing numbers. That would make the continuation invalid right? How would you even catch that without manually checking every document?
0 coins
Grace Durand
•Actually had this happen last year. Client filed a continuation but transposed two digits in the original filing number. The lapse happened anyway because the continuation didn't legally attach to anything. Cost them their security interest.
0 coins
Jayden Hill
•That's terrifying. How do you verify the connection between documents when you're dealing with multiple variations?
0 coins
Steven Adams
For situations like this where you need to verify document consistency quickly, I've started using Certana.ai's UCC verification tool. You just upload the PDFs of all the filings and it automatically cross-checks debtor names, filing numbers, and document connections. Saved me hours of manual comparison and caught discrepancies I would have missed. Really helpful when you're under deadline pressure.
0 coins
Alice Fleming
•Never heard of that tool but it sounds useful. Does it work with documents downloaded from Westlaw or do you need original SOS copies?
0 coins
Steven Adams
•Works with any PDF format. I usually download from both Westlaw and SOS, then upload everything to get a complete consistency check. The tool flags any mismatches between documents automatically.
0 coins
Hassan Khoury
•Interesting. How does it handle the debtor name variations like the OP mentioned? Those comma differences can be tricky to evaluate.
0 coins
Victoria Stark
The debtor name issue is probably your biggest concern here. Even small punctuation differences can affect whether a filing is effective against the debtor. Some states are strict about exact name matches, others are more lenient. You need to check that state's specific rules about 'seriously misleading' name errors.
0 coins
Benjamin Kim
•What's the best way to determine a state's name matching rules? The UCC statutes can be pretty vague about what constitutes 'seriously misleading.
0 coins
Victoria Stark
•Usually the Secretary of State publishes guidance or you can find court cases interpreting the standard. But honestly, when in doubt, I always recommend filing under all name variations to be safe.
0 coins
Samantha Howard
ugh this is why I hate UCC searches. The databases never match up perfectly and you end up spending forever trying to figure out what's actually filed vs what's just database errors. Last week I found three different versions of the same filing across different search platforms.
0 coins
Megan D'Acosta
•I feel your pain. The whole system needs an overhaul but we're stuck working with what we have. At least the electronic filing has reduced some of the chaos from the old paper days.
0 coins
Sarah Ali
•Electronic filing created new problems though. Now you get partial uploads, system timeouts during submission, and all kinds of technical glitches that didn't exist with paper.
0 coins
Ryan Vasquez
Quick question - are you sure the 2019 filing actually lapsed? If there was a continuation filed before the fifth anniversary, it would extend the effectiveness regardless of when you see it in the database. The timing of the continuation matters more than when it shows up in search results.
0 coins
Jayden Hill
•The original filing date was March 2019, so it should have lapsed in March 2024 without a continuation. But the continuation I'm seeing is dated February 2024, so if it's valid, the lien should still be effective.
0 coins
Avery Saint
•That timing works if the continuation properly references the original filing. But given the filing number discrepancy you mentioned, you really need to verify that connection.
0 coins
Taylor Chen
•This is where document verification tools like Certana.ai become really valuable. Instead of trying to manually trace all these connections, you can upload the filings and get an automated analysis of whether they properly link together.
0 coins
Keith Davidson
I would pull certified copies from the SOS for any filing that affects your loan decision. Westlaw is great for initial searches but you need official records for final verification, especially if there's any ambiguity about effectiveness.
0 coins
Ezra Bates
•Good point about certified copies. How long does that usually take? The OP mentioned they need to close next week.
0 coins
Keith Davidson
•Most states can provide certified copies within 24-48 hours if you pay for expedited service. Worth the cost for peace of mind on a significant loan.
0 coins
Ana Erdoğan
Have you considered that there might be legitimately separate UCC filings? If Smith Construction took out multiple secured loans, there could be different lenders with different filing strategies. The name variations might reflect different loan documents or entity changes over time.
0 coins
Sophia Carson
•That's a good point. Multiple secured creditors could definitely create this kind of filing pattern. The OP should check if these are from different secured parties.
0 coins
Jayden Hill
•I hadn't thought about multiple creditors. Let me check the secured party information on each filing to see if they're from different lenders.
0 coins
Elijah Knight
Whatever you do, don't rely solely on Westlaw for your final decision. I've seen too many deals go sideways because someone trusted a commercial database over official state records. Always cross-reference with the actual SOS database before making lending decisions.
0 coins
Brooklyn Foley
•Absolutely agree. Commercial databases are great for screening but you need official verification for anything that affects loan security.
0 coins
Jay Lincoln
•Plus if you ever need to enforce your security interest, courts will want to see official state records, not Westlaw printouts.
0 coins
Jessica Suarez
Based on your description, I'd recommend: 1) Pull official records from SOS, 2) Verify debtor name consistency with current corporate records, 3) Trace the connection between the original filing and continuation, 4) Consider whether you need to file your own UCC-1 regardless of existing liens. Better to over-secure than under-secure.
0 coins
Marcus Williams
•This is solid advice. I'd add that you should also verify the collateral descriptions match between documents. Sometimes continuation statements change or expand the collateral scope.
0 coins
Jayden Hill
•Great checklist. I'm going to start with the SOS search and then use one of those document verification tools to check consistency across all the filings I find.
0 coins
Lily Young
•Smart approach. Document verification tools like Certana.ai can really speed up that consistency checking process, especially when you're dealing with multiple filings and tight deadlines.
0 coins
Felix Grigori
I've been in this exact situation before and here's what worked for me: Start with the SOS portal immediately - don't wait. Even if it's slower than Westlaw, you need the official source. For the name variations, check the debtor's current Articles of Incorporation or LLC registration to see the exact legal name format. The filing number discrepancy between the original UCC-1 and continuation is a red flag - if they don't properly cross-reference, that continuation might be legally worthless. I'd also recommend calling the SOS filing office directly if you can't resolve the discrepancies online. They can often clarify whether filings are connected even when the numbers don't match perfectly. Given your timeline, consider having your attorney review the filings before closing - it's cheaper than dealing with priority disputes later.
0 coins