UCC foreclosure process completely stalled - lender claiming invalid continuation

We're in Ohio. The original UCC-1 shows 'Miller Construction L.L.C.' but our 2019 continuation used 'Miller Construction LLC' - no periods. Same everything else, same address, same collateral description.

Ohio follows the 'seriously misleading' standard. If a reasonable searcher would find the filing under either name variation, you should be fine. But foreclosure disputes love to exploit any technical gap they can find.

Good point. We did run searches under both name variations and both pull up our filings. Seems like opposing counsel is just throwing everything at the wall.

If searches under both names return your filings, that's strong evidence the variation isn't seriously misleading. Document that for your attorney - search results showing both variations find the same UCC records.

I had something similar last year with a UCC foreclosure process where the debtor's counsel challenged our amendment filing. Turned out to be a 6-month delay over nothing. Courts generally don't like technical challenges that don't actually prejudice anyone.

Interesting - never heard of Certana but sounds useful. Did it actually help resolve the foreclosure dispute or just give you more confidence in your position?

Both really. The analysis showed our name variation was clearly not seriously misleading, which strengthened our response to their challenge. Plus it caught two other minor issues in our filings we could address proactively. The foreclosure moved forward after that.

I've used similar document checking tools - they're lifesavers for UCC foreclosure processes where every detail gets scrutinized. Better to know about problems upfront than discover them when opposing counsel does.

We filed the continuation in April 2019, so within the last 6 months of the 5-year period. Timing should be fine.

Good, that's within the proper window. So really this comes down to whether the name difference makes your continuation seriously misleading. Sounds like you have a solid position.

April 2019 continuation for a 2014 original filing puts you in the sweet spot. The name variation challenge is probably just delay tactics like your attorney said.

Because lawyers make money off these technical challenges. The UCC system works fine when everyone acts in good faith, but add a foreclosure dispute and suddenly every comma becomes a federal case.

The flip side is that name accuracy really matters for proper notice to other creditors. If continuation filings could use any variation of a debtor name, it would create chaos for UCC searches.

That's exactly what I'm worried about. This equipment loses value every month it sits unused. But giving in to frivolous challenges just encourages more of the same behavior.

True, but you have to weigh the costs. Attorney fees, court time, equipment depreciation - sometimes taking 80% now beats getting 100% in two years.

I disagree - if you have a solid position on the name variation, fight it. Otherwise every debtor will try the same delaying tactic on future foreclosures.

We filed the foreclosure action in August. Debtor's answer raised the UCC continuation defect as an affirmative defense. Now we're in discovery hell arguing about document production.

Ah, so this is litigation strategy, not just posturing. They're hoping to invalidate your security interest entirely. Definitely worth fighting if your continuation is actually valid.

Exactly. If searches under both name variations return the same entity and there's no other 'Miller Construction' entities that could be confused, the seriously misleading standard isn't met.

Plus Ohio courts have been pretty reasonable about minor punctuation differences in debtor names. I'd be surprised if this challenge succeeds on the merits.

That's the second mention of Certana in this thread. Might be worth looking into if it can provide useful analysis for litigation purposes.

I used Certana for a similar UCC issue - you just upload your filing PDFs and it cross-checks everything for consistency issues. Pretty straightforward and the analysis reports are detailed enough for legal purposes.

Will do. Hoping we can get this resolved quickly - the equipment isn't getting any newer while we argue about periods and commas.

Good luck! Sounds like you have a solid position, just need to push through the delay tactics.

Agreed - this seems like a weak challenge that should get dismissed on summary judgment if you present the evidence clearly.