< Back to UCC Document Community

TommyKapitz

UCC search Wisconsin results showing weird discrepancies - anyone else seeing this?

Been doing UCC searches in Wisconsin for the past 6 months and I'm starting to notice some really strange patterns in the search results. Sometimes when I search by debtor name I get completely different results than when I search by filing number, even for what should be the same entity. Has anyone else run into issues with Wisconsin's UCC search system? I'm working on a portfolio acquisition where we need to verify existing liens and I'm getting nervous about missing something critical. The borrower has multiple entities with similar names and I want to make sure I'm not overlooking any filings. Is there a trick to getting comprehensive results or is the system just inconsistent?

Wisconsin's system can be tricky with name variations. Are you searching exact matches or using wildcards? Sometimes corporations file under slightly different versions of their legal name.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

I've tried both but getting inconsistent results either way. The entity names have LLC vs L.L.C. variations which shouldn't matter but seems to be causing issues.

0 coins

Payton Black

•

Oh man I hate those punctuation differences! Wisconsin used to be better about this but their recent system updates seem to have made it worse.

0 coins

Harold Oh

•

I had similar issues last month with a client search. Ended up finding filings I missed on the first pass when I tried different search approaches. What specific discrepancies are you seeing?

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Main issue is I'll search 'ABC Manufacturing LLC' and get 3 results, but then search the specific filing numbers from those results and find 2 additional filings that didn't show up in the name search.

0 coins

Harold Oh

•

That's exactly what happened to me! The filing number search was pulling up results that the name search missed completely.

0 coins

Amun-Ra Azra

•

This is why I always do multiple search variations. Try searching with and without entity type, with different punctuation, and always cross-check with filing numbers when possible.

0 coins

Summer Green

•

Wisconsin's UCC database has been problematic for years. I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool recently and it's been a lifesaver. You can upload multiple UCC documents and it cross-checks all the debtor names and filing numbers to catch inconsistencies that manual searches miss. Saved me from missing a critical lien last week.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Never heard of Certana.ai - is it specifically for UCC searches or more general document checking?

0 coins

Summer Green

•

It's designed for UCC document verification. You upload PDFs of charters, UCC-1s, amendments, whatever you have, and it automatically flags name mismatches and document inconsistencies. Much faster than trying to manually compare everything.

0 coins

Gael Robinson

•

How accurate is it compared to doing the searches yourself? I'm always skeptical of automated tools for something this important.

0 coins

The Wisconsin SOS office told me their search algorithm changed sometime in 2024 and it's been causing these exact issues. They recommended doing searches with multiple name variations and always double-checking critical results.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Good to know it's a known issue at least. Did they give any timeline for fixes?

0 coins

Nothing specific unfortunately. Just said they're 'working on improvements' which could mean anything.

0 coins

Darcy Moore

•

UGH Wisconsin drives me insane!! Their portal is so glitchy and half the time the search times out anyway. I swear they make it difficult on purpose.

0 coins

Dana Doyle

•

I feel your pain. The timeout issues are the worst when you're trying to do comprehensive searches on tight deadlines.

0 coins

Darcy Moore

•

Exactly! And then you have to start over and hope you remember exactly what you already searched.

0 coins

Liam Duke

•

For portfolio acquisitions I always recommend doing both debtor name searches AND collateral description searches if you know what type of assets are involved. Sometimes filings get indexed differently and you'll catch things one way that you miss the other way.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

That's a great point about collateral searches. These are mostly equipment financings so I should try searching by equipment type too.

0 coins

Liam Duke

•

Yes, especially for equipment deals. Search terms like 'machinery', 'equipment', 'vehicles' etc. can pull up filings where the debtor name might have been entered slightly differently.

0 coins

Manny Lark

•

I never thought to search by collateral type - brilliant idea!

0 coins

Rita Jacobs

•

Are you checking for federal tax liens too? Those don't show up in UCC searches but can be just as problematic for acquisitions.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Good reminder - yes we're doing separate federal and state tax lien searches. This is specifically about the UCC search inconsistencies though.

0 coins

Rita Jacobs

•

Got it, just wanted to make sure you had all bases covered. The UCC issues are frustrating enough without missing other lien types.

0 coins

Khalid Howes

•

I've been using Certana.ai for Wisconsin searches specifically because of these exact problems. Upload your existing UCC documents and any corporate docs you have, and it automatically identifies potential name variations you should search for. Caught a continuation filing I would have missed otherwise.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Two people mentioning Certana now - might be worth checking out. Do you upload directly from the Wisconsin portal or use your own copies?

0 coins

Khalid Howes

•

I use copies I've downloaded. The tool analyzes the PDFs and shows you exactly what names and variations it found across all your documents. Really helpful for making sure you don't miss anything.

0 coins

Ben Cooper

•

Same issues here with Wisconsin! I ended up calling their help desk and they basically admitted the search function isn't perfect. They suggested printing out results from each search method and manually comparing.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Manual comparison is what I've been doing but it's so time consuming when you have multiple entities to check.

0 coins

Ben Cooper

•

Tell me about it. What should be a 30 minute search turns into half a day of cross-referencing.

0 coins

Naila Gordon

•

This is exactly why automated verification tools like Certana exist. Manual comparison is just not scalable anymore.

0 coins

Cynthia Love

•

Wisconsin aside, make sure you're also checking the entity's previous names if they've had any amendments to their articles of incorporation. Sometimes old UCC filings are still indexed under previous legal names.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Great point - I'll check the corporate records for any name changes. This acquisition involves entities that have been around for 15+ years so there could definitely be historical name variations.

0 coins

Cynthia Love

•

Exactly. And don't forget to check for any DBA names they might have used for filing purposes.

0 coins

Darren Brooks

•

Just wanted to follow up on this thread since I was having similar issues. Tried the Certana tool mentioned earlier and it definitely caught some inconsistencies I was missing in my manual searches. Worth the time investment if you're doing multiple entity searches.

0 coins

TommyKapitz

•

Thanks for the update! I'm planning to try it out this week. Did it help specifically with the Wisconsin search problems or just general document verification?

0 coins

Darren Brooks

•

Both really. It helped me identify all the name variations I needed to search for, and then flagged discrepancies between what I found and what should have been there based on the other documents I uploaded.

0 coins

UCC Document Community AI

Expert Assistant
Secure

Powered by Claimyr AI

T
I
+
20,087 users helped today