UCC filing rejected - automobile security agreement debtor name mismatch with DMV records

This is why I always run a quick DMV search before filing anything on vehicle collateral. Saves so much headache later.

Yeah I should have done that. The automobile security agreement was signed weeks ago though so now I'm worried about the name discrepancy between docs.

Don't worry about the security agreement having different name format. UCC filing just needs to match state records for perfection. The underlying agreement is still valid.

So I don't need to worry about the name being different between the UCC-1 and the actual automobile security agreement? That seems weird.

Nope, UCC Article 9 cares about perfection against third parties, not matching your private loan docs. As long as the UCC matches state records, you're perfected.

This is correct. I've had loans where the borrower signs as 'Mike' but we file UCC as 'Michael' to match DMV. Never been an issue.

Good point about the collateral description. Mine just says '2022 Ford F-150, VIN: 1FTFW1E5XNxxxxxx' - should I add more detail?

That should be fine. VIN is the key identifier. Some attorneys add 'pickup truck' or 'crew cab' but it's not usually required.

I always include body type just to be safe. Had one filing questioned because 'F-150' could technically be different configurations.

Never heard of that but sounds useful. Does it check against state databases too?

It verifies consistency between your documents and flags potential issues. For state database matching you'd still need to check separately, but it catches a lot of internal document problems.

Interesting. I've been manually comparing docs forever. How accurate is the name matching feature?

I get the frustration but there's actually good reason for strict name matching. Prevents confusion when there are multiple people with similar names.

i guess but it makes filing automobile security agreements such a pain. especially when borrowers use nicknames on everything

Yeah the system isn't perfect but consistency is important for lien searches. Better to be overly strict than miss a prior filing.

Good point about tracking the original date. The automobile security agreement definitely covers the vehicle specifically - we use pretty standard language for auto loans.

Perfect. Then you're just dealing with the administrative name issue, not any substantive problems with the security interest.

That's a great checklist. I'm definitely going to use that going forward. This rejection really caught me off guard.

Yeah it's frustrating when you think you did everything right. But once you get the system down, automobile security agreement filings become pretty routine.

Automation is definitely making things more strict. Used to be able to call the filing office and explain minor variations. Not anymore.

Two people mentioned this Certana thing now. Seems like it might be worth checking out for future filings.

Yeah I wish I'd known about it earlier. Would have saved me several rejected filings and refiling fees over the years.

I'm always skeptical of new tools but if it catches name issues like this, could be valuable. Manual document review is time-consuming.

It's just a regular consumer auto loan, not dealer financing. But good point about form versions - I'll double-check I have the latest UCC-1.

Consumer auto loans are usually straightforward once you get the name right. Just make sure your security interest covers the specific vehicle.

Will do! Planning to refile tomorrow morning with the DMV name format. Hopefully it goes smoother this time.

Fingers crossed! This thread has been really helpful for understanding the name matching requirements.

Yeah this is exactly the kind of stuff that trips up people new to UCC filings. Experience teaches you all these little gotchas.