UCC additional party form rejected - debtor name mismatch issues
Been dealing with this nightmare for weeks now. Filed a UCC-1 back in March for equipment financing on some construction machinery. Everything went through fine initially. Now I need to add an additional secured party because we brought in a co-lender arrangement and the SOS keeps rejecting my UCC additional party form. The error message says something about debtor name inconsistency but I'm using the exact same entity name from the original filing. Has anyone run into this before? The original debtor is listed as "ABC Construction Services LLC" and that's exactly what I'm putting on the additional party amendment. Getting really frustrated because this deal is supposed to close next week and the co-lender won't fund without their security interest properly recorded. Any ideas what might be causing the rejection?
39 comments


Kayla Morgan
I've seen this exact issue multiple times. The problem usually isn't with the debtor name itself but with how the additional secured party information is formatted on the UCC-3 form. When you're adding a secured party, the system cross-references everything against the original UCC-1. Check if there are any extra spaces, punctuation differences, or formatting issues in your additional party's legal name. Also make sure you're using the correct UCC-3 checkbox for "Add secured party" rather than "Assign" if you're keeping the original lender on the filing too.
0 coins
James Maki
•This is really helpful. I didn't realize the system was that picky about formatting. Going to double-check every character in both the debtor name and the new secured party name.
0 coins
Jasmine Hancock
•Yeah the cross-referencing is brutal. One time I had a rejection because I used "Co." instead of "Company" even though both versions were technically correct legal names.
0 coins
Cole Roush
Are you sure you have the right initial filing number? Sometimes when there are multiple UCC-1s filed around the same time for similar entity names, people accidentally reference the wrong filing number on their UCC-3. The debtor name has to match EXACTLY what's on the original filing you're trying to amend.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Double checked that - definitely have the right filing number. It's a 12-digit number starting with 25 so it's definitely from this year. The debtor name is copied directly from the original filing confirmation.
0 coins
Cole Roush
•Hmm, if you're certain about the filing number and debtor name, it might be the secured party section causing issues. What exactly does the rejection notice say?
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Says "Debtor name does not match original filing" but I've checked character by character. It's identical.
0 coins
Scarlett Forster
Had a similar headache last month. Ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool to compare my UCC-3 against the original UCC-1. Turns out there was a single extra space after "LLC" that I couldn't see. The tool highlights every difference between documents so you can spot these tiny inconsistencies that cause rejections. Saved me from missing another deadline.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Never heard of that tool but sounds like exactly what I need. Is it expensive to use?
0 coins
Scarlett Forster
•They focus on value rather than cost. You just upload your PDFs and it does the comparison automatically. Much faster than manually checking every field.
0 coins
Arnav Bengali
•Actually used this too after someone recommended it here. Works really well for catching those invisible formatting issues.
0 coins
Sayid Hassan
Something else to consider - are you filing in the right state? If ABC Construction Services LLC is organized in a different state than where you originally filed, there might be jurisdiction issues affecting the additional party amendment.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Good point but we filed in the state of organization originally so that should be correct.
0 coins
Sayid Hassan
•Ok then it's probably the formatting issue others mentioned. Those systems are incredibly picky.
0 coins
Rachel Tao
UGH this exact thing happened to me!! Spent HOURS trying to figure out what was wrong. The rejection messages are useless - they never tell you specifically what's different. Mine turned out to be because the original filing had a comma after the company name and my amendment didn't. Who would ever think to check for something that minor?
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•That's insane. How did you finally figure it out?
0 coins
Rachel Tao
•Had to request a certified copy of the original filing and compare it word for word with my amendment. Took forever.
0 coins
Derek Olson
•This is why I always request certified copies before filing amendments. The online search results sometimes don't show the exact formatting.
0 coins
Danielle Mays
Try calling the SOS filing office directly. Sometimes they can tell you specifically what field is causing the mismatch. Not all states are helpful but some will walk you through it over the phone.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Good idea. Their phone system is usually a nightmare but worth a try.
0 coins
Danielle Mays
•Yeah expect to be on hold but if you get through to someone who knows UCCs they can be really helpful.
0 coins
Roger Romero
Is this your first time adding a secured party? The UCC-3 form can be confusing. Make sure you're checking the right boxes - "Add secured party" not "Delete and add" unless you're actually removing the original lender.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Yes first time. I selected "Add secured party" because we want both lenders on the filing.
0 coins
Roger Romero
•That's correct then. Definitely sounds like a formatting issue with the names.
0 coins
Anna Kerber
Another possibility - is the additional secured party name too long for the field? Some states have character limits that aren't obvious. If the co-lender has a really long legal name with multiple LLCs or subsidiaries in the title, it might be getting truncated.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•The co-lender name is pretty standard length so I don't think that's it. But good to know about character limits.
0 coins
Anna Kerber
•Yeah it's not always obvious. Some systems just cut off the name without warning instead of giving you an error.
0 coins
Niko Ramsey
•Had this happen once. The system accepted the filing but truncated the secured party name which caused problems later when we tried to file a continuation.
0 coins
Seraphina Delan
Just dealt with something similar last week. Used that Certana tool someone mentioned above and it caught a period after "LLC" on the original that I was missing on my amendment. Super frustrating but at least there's a way to catch these things now without manually comparing every character.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•Starting to think this document comparison tool might be my best bet. These manual checks are driving me crazy.
0 coins
Seraphina Delan
•Yeah it's definitely worth trying. Beats staring at documents for hours trying to spot tiny differences.
0 coins
Jabari-Jo
One more thought - double check that ABC Construction Services LLC is still the correct legal name. Sometimes entities change their names slightly for tax purposes or compliance reasons and forget to tell their lenders. Might be worth pulling a current certificate of good standing to verify the exact legal name.
0 coins
Saleem Vaziri
•That's actually a really good point. Going to check with the client to make sure they haven't made any entity changes recently.
0 coins
Jabari-Jo
•Yeah it's more common than you'd think. Especially with LLCs that get converted or merged.
0 coins
Kayla Morgan
•Good catch. I've seen this cause problems when the entity made changes but didn't notify all their creditors.
0 coins
Kristin Frank
UPDATE: Finally got this resolved! It was indeed a formatting issue - there was an invisible character (probably a non-breaking space) in the debtor name that I couldn't see. The document comparison tool caught it immediately. Filed the corrected UCC-3 this morning and it went through without any issues. Thanks everyone for the suggestions!
0 coins
Scarlett Forster
•Awesome! Glad the tool worked for you. Those invisible characters are the worst.
0 coins
Rachel Tao
•So relieved for you! These formatting rejections are such a pain.
0 coins
Kayla Morgan
•Great outcome. This is exactly why automated document comparison is so helpful for UCC filings.
0 coins