UCC termination form california - SOS rejected my filing twice
Need help with a UCC termination in California that keeps getting rejected by the SOS. I'm handling the payoff for a 2019 equipment loan and the bank sent me what they said was the 'standard termination paperwork' but California's system has bounced it back twice now. First rejection said something about the debtor name not matching exactly, second time they rejected it for 'insufficient collateral description reference.' The original UCC-1 was filed in 2019 for $275,000 worth of manufacturing equipment and I thought terminations were supposed to be straightforward once the loan is paid off. Anyone dealt with California's specific requirements for UCC termination forms? The bank is getting impatient and I'm worried about missing something important that could leave this lien hanging out there.
36 comments
Join the conversation
Ivanna St. Pierre
California SOS is notorious for being picky about debtor name matches on terminations. Even a missing comma or extra period can trigger a rejection. Did you double-check that the debtor name on your termination exactly matches what's on the original UCC-1? And I mean EXACTLY - same punctuation, same spacing, same abbreviations.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•I thought it matched but now I'm second-guessing myself. The original filing has the company name as 'ABC Manufacturing Inc.' but our termination might have 'ABC Manufacturing, Inc.' with a comma. Could that really cause a rejection?
0 coins
Ivanna St. Pierre
•Absolutely. California is super strict about that stuff. One extra comma and they'll bounce it back every time. Pull the original filing and match it character by character.
0 coins
Elin Robinson
What specific form are you using for the termination? California uses UCC-3 for amendments and terminations, but make sure you're checking the right box for 'termination' and not 'amendment.' Also, you need to reference the original filing number exactly as it appears on the UCC-1.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Using UCC-3 and I'm pretty sure I checked termination. The filing number should be straightforward since I copied it directly from the original filing confirmation.
0 coins
Atticus Domingo
•Don't assume the bank gave you the right form. I've seen lenders send generic termination letters instead of proper UCC-3 forms. California won't accept anything but their official UCC-3 with the termination box checked.
0 coins
Beth Ford
I ran into similar issues last year with a California termination. Ended up using Certana.ai's document checker to compare my UCC-3 against the original UCC-1 before filing. It caught three small discrepancies I never would have noticed - debtor name formatting, a missing middle initial, and the collateral description reference wasn't complete. Just upload both documents and it highlights any inconsistencies automatically.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•That sounds really helpful. How does the document checker work exactly? Do you just upload PDFs of both filings?
0 coins
Beth Ford
•Yeah, super simple. Upload your original UCC-1 and your termination UCC-3, and it cross-checks all the critical fields. Shows you exactly what doesn't match so you can fix it before filing. Saved me from a third rejection.
0 coins
Morita Montoya
•Never heard of that tool but sounds like it could prevent a lot of headaches. California's rejection notices are so vague it's hard to figure out exactly what's wrong.
0 coins
Kingston Bellamy
For the collateral description issue, you don't need to repeat the entire schedule from the original UCC-1. But you DO need to make sure your termination references enough of the collateral description that it's clear which filing you're terminating. Sometimes a generic 'all collateral' reference isn't enough.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•The bank's termination just says 'all equipment described in original filing.' Is that too vague for California?
0 coins
Kingston Bellamy
•Probably. Try including at least the first line or two of the original collateral description so there's no ambiguity about which filing you're terminating.
0 coins
Joy Olmedo
UGH California's UCC system is THE WORST. I swear they reject filings just to collect more fees. Had a termination rejected THREE times last month for 'clerical errors' that weren't even errors - just their system being stupid.
0 coins
Isaiah Cross
•I feel your pain but getting mad doesn't help. The key is just being super methodical about matching everything exactly. California's strict but they're consistent about what they want.
0 coins
Joy Olmedo
•Consistent at being impossible maybe. Why can't they just accept a simple termination letter like other states?
0 coins
Kiara Greene
Quick question - are you filing online through the SOS portal or mailing paper forms? The online system sometimes gives better error messages that help you figure out what's wrong.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Filing online. The rejection notices just say 'debtor name mismatch' and 'insufficient collateral reference' but don't specify exactly what's wrong.
0 coins
Kiara Greene
•At least online is faster than mail. Paper filings can take weeks just to get rejected.
0 coins
Evelyn Kelly
Been doing UCC filings in California for 15 years. Two things to check: 1) Make sure you're using the secured party information exactly as it appears on the original filing, not just the bank's current letterhead. 2) If the original UCC-1 was filed by an agent, you might need special authorization language for the termination.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Good point about the secured party info. The bank might have changed their official name or address since 2019. I'll double-check that.
0 coins
Ivanna St. Pierre
•Yeah, bank mergers and name changes can mess up terminations. The secured party name has to match the original filing exactly.
0 coins
Evelyn Kelly
•Exactly. And if there was a merger or acquisition, you might need to file an assignment first before you can file the termination.
0 coins
Paloma Clark
This is why I always run a UCC search before filing terminations, even on my own deals. Sometimes there are multiple filings or amendments that affect how you need to structure the termination.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•That's smart. I assumed there was just the one original filing but there could be amendments I don't know about.
0 coins
Paloma Clark
•California UCC searches are pretty cheap and can save you from filing mistakes. Worth doing before any termination.
0 coins
Heather Tyson
Had a similar nightmare with a California termination last year. Turned out the original UCC-1 had a typo in the debtor name that I'd never noticed, and the termination had to match the EXACT same typo. California won't let you fix the original filing and terminate in one step.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Oh no, what if there's a typo in the original? Do you have to live with it forever?
0 coins
Heather Tyson
•You can file an amendment to correct the debtor name first, then file the termination. But it's two separate filings and two separate fees.
0 coins
Kingston Bellamy
•Actually, you can sometimes terminate against the incorrect name if that's what's actually on file. Depends on the specific situation.
0 coins
Raul Neal
For what it's worth, I tried Certana's document verification after reading about it here and it definitely caught stuff I missed. Uploaded my UCC-1 and termination draft and it flagged that I had the wrong county listed (original was filed in LA County but I put Orange County on the termination). Simple mistake but would have caused another rejection.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Sounds like that tool could save me a lot of time. Better to catch errors before filing than keep getting rejections.
0 coins
Jenna Sloan
•Yeah, third rejection starts to look bad to clients. Better to get it right the first time.
0 coins
Christian Burns
Update us when you get it figured out! Always curious to hear what the actual issue was on these tricky California terminations.
0 coins
Esteban Tate
•Will do. Going to double-check everything mentioned here and probably try that document checker before filing again.
0 coins
Ivanna St. Pierre
•Good plan. Take your time and get it right rather than rushing into a third rejection.
0 coins