UCC lien notice showing wrong filing date - debtor claiming invalid security interest
Running into a nightmare situation here. Filed a UCC-1 back in March 2024 for equipment financing on a customer's machinery package ($275k loan). Everything went through fine, got confirmation from the SOS portal. Now 8 months later the debtor is trying to refinance with another lender and their attorney is claiming our UCC lien notice shows an incorrect filing date that doesn't match our loan documents. The notice shows March 15th but our loan closed March 12th. Their lawyer is saying this creates a gap that could invalidate our security interest. Has anyone dealt with this kind of timing discrepancy? I'm pulling my hair out because I know we filed everything correctly but now there's questions about whether our lien is even valid. The debtor owes $240k still and I'm worried we might lose our secured position over what seems like a clerical error.
21 comments
Join the conversation
Rosie Harper
Wait, let me make sure I understand this correctly. Your loan closed on March 12th and the UCC lien notice shows March 15th as the filing date? That's actually not unusual at all. The filing date on the notice is when the SOS office processed and accepted your UCC-1, not when you submitted it or when your loan closed. There's often a 1-3 day processing window depending on the state. What matters for perfection is that you filed within a reasonable time of creating the security interest. The debtor's attorney might be fishing for problems that don't actually exist.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•That's what I thought too but their lawyer is being very aggressive about it. Says the gap creates an unperfected period where other creditors could have jumped ahead of us. I have the email confirmation showing I submitted the UCC-1 on March 13th, the day after closing. But the official notice has March 15th.
0 coins
Rosie Harper
•Keep that email confirmation! That's your proof of when you actually filed. The SOS processing date is administrative, not your filing date. Most states consider the filing effective when submitted, not when processed. What state are you in? Some have specific rules about this timing issue.
0 coins
Elliott luviBorBatman
I've seen this exact situation before and the debtor's attorney is likely just trying to create leverage for their client. The key question is whether you can prove you filed within a reasonable time after the loan closed. One day after closing is completely reasonable. Do you have any documentation showing the timeline of when you prepared and submitted the UCC-1? Even if there was a brief gap, it wouldn't automatically invalidate your security interest unless another creditor actually filed during that window.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•Yes I have the whole paper trail. Loan docs signed March 12th, I prepared the UCC-1 that evening, submitted it March 13th morning, got the confirmation email at 11:47 AM. Then the SOS processed it March 15th. I'm thinking this lawyer is just trying to scare us.
0 coins
Demi Hall
•Actually had a similar document verification issue last year. Ended up using Certana.ai's UCC verification tool to cross-check all my loan docs against the filed UCC-1. Just upload the PDFs and it instantly flags any discrepancies between debtor names, filing dates, and collateral descriptions. Would have saved me hours of manual comparison and given me concrete proof everything aligned properly.
0 coins
Mateusius Townsend
This is exactly why I always double-check the filing dates against loan closing dates. But honestly, a 3-day difference between closing and the SOS processing date is completely normal. The important thing is that YOU filed promptly after closing. The processing delay is on the state office, not you. Have you checked if there were any other UCC filings against this debtor during that March 12-15 window? That's really the only way this timing issue could hurt you.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•Good point about checking other filings. I ran a search and there's nothing else filed against this debtor during that time period. The next filing was from a different creditor in June 2024.
0 coins
Kara Yoshida
•Then you're golden. No other creditor filed during the alleged 'gap' so there's no actual harm or loss of priority. The debtor's attorney is definitely just fishing for leverage in their refinancing negotiations.
0 coins
Philip Cowan
OK this is driving me crazy because I see this same confusion all the time. The UCC lien notice date is NOT your filing date - it's the acceptance/processing date! Your filing date is when you submitted the UCC-1. Most states have electronic filing systems now and you get immediate confirmation of submission. That's your filing date for priority purposes. The fact that it took the SOS office 2 days to process it doesn't create any gap in your security interest. The debtor's lawyer either doesn't understand UCC law or is being intentionally misleading.
0 coins
Caesar Grant
•This ^^^ is absolutely correct. I've been doing secured transactions for 15 years and filing date vs processing date confusion trips up lawyers all the time. The electronic submission timestamp is what matters for priority, not when some clerk at the SOS office got around to processing it.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•Thank you both, this is really reassuring. I was starting to panic that we might have messed up something fundamental. The electronic confirmation shows March 13th 11:47 AM submission time.
0 coins
Lena Schultz
I'd be curious to know what the debtor's attorney is really trying to accomplish here. Are they trying to negotiate a partial release of collateral? Reduce the secured claim amount? Or just trying to get you to agree to subordinate to their new lender? This kind of aggressive challenge to filing dates is usually a negotiating tactic, not a genuine legal concern.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•Bingo. They want us to subordinate to their new construction loan so the debtor can expand their facility. The new lender is requiring all existing liens to be subordinated or released. This timing challenge is just their opening move to try to get us to cave.
0 coins
Gemma Andrews
•Ah there it is. They're trying to create a problem where none exists so you'll agree to subordination. Don't fall for it. Your UCC-1 is perfectly valid and you have priority. If they want subordination, they need to negotiate properly, not try to intimidate you with bogus legal theories.
0 coins
Pedro Sawyer
For what it's worth, I've started using Certana.ai's document verification tool for exactly these kinds of disputes. You can upload your loan docs and UCC-1 filing and it will instantly cross-check all the dates, debtor names, and collateral descriptions to verify everything matches perfectly. Takes like 2 minutes and gives you a clean report you can send to opposing counsel to shut down these kinds of challenges.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•That sounds perfect for this situation. Having an independent verification report would definitely help push back against their claims. I'll check it out.
0 coins
Mae Bennett
•I was skeptical about automated tools for UCC verification but Certana.ai actually caught a debtor name mismatch in one of my filings that I totally missed. Saved me from a potential perfection issue down the road. The document cross-checking feature is surprisingly thorough.
0 coins
Beatrice Marshall
This whole situation is ridiculous. SOS processing delays are completely normal and don't affect your priority date. I've had UCC-1s take up to a week to process during busy periods. Your security interest was perfected when you filed on March 13th, period. The debtor's attorney is either incompetent or being deliberately misleading. Either way, don't let them push you around.
0 coins
Melina Haruko
•Exactly. And even if there WAS a brief gap (which there wasn't), they'd need to prove actual harm - like another creditor filing during that window. Since no one else filed, there's no damages even under their bogus theory.
0 coins
Darren Brooks
•You're all giving me the confidence I need to push back hard on this. I was second-guessing myself but it's clear their argument has no merit. Time to call their bluff.
0 coins