UCC1 addendum form causing rejection - debtor name variations
Having major issues with a UCC1 addendum that keeps getting rejected by the filing office. The main UCC1 was filed successfully last month for a commercial equipment loan, but now we need to add additional collateral using the addendum form. The rejection notice mentions 'debtor name inconsistency' but I've triple-checked the spelling and it matches exactly what's on the original filing. The addendum references heavy machinery we're adding as collateral - excavators and bulldozers valued around $180K. Our lender is getting impatient since the loan closing depends on this perfected security interest. Has anyone dealt with addendum rejections where the debtor name supposedly doesn't match? I'm wondering if there's some formatting issue I'm missing or if the filing office system has a glitch. This is holding up a major construction project and I'm running out of time to figure this out.
39 comments
Join the conversation
TommyKapitz
Addendum rejections are frustrating! First thing to check - are you using the exact same debtor name format including punctuation? Even a missing comma or period can trigger a rejection. Also verify the UCC1 filing number is correct on the addendum form.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•I thought I had it exact but let me double-check the punctuation. The filing number should be right since I copied it directly from the confirmation notice.
0 coins
Angel Campbell
•Punctuation differences are the worst! Had a filing rejected because of a missing LLC period once.
0 coins
Payton Black
Check if your original UCC1 has any suffix variations like 'Inc.' vs 'Incorporated' - the addendum has to match character for character. Also some states are picky about spacing.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•Good point about the Inc vs Incorporated thing. I'll pull up both documents side by side to compare.
0 coins
TommyKapitz
•Yeah spacing can be tricky too. Some systems are very literal about extra spaces.
0 coins
Harold Oh
I ran into something similar last year. Turned out the issue was that I had uploaded the wrong version of the addendum form - there was an updated version that had slightly different field requirements. Might be worth checking if you're using the current form.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•That's a good catch - I downloaded the form a few weeks ago but maybe there's been an update since then.
0 coins
Payton Black
•Form versions can definitely cause problems. Always grab the latest one from the SOS website.
0 coins
Amun-Ra Azra
•This happened to me too! Used an old form and got rejected three times before figuring it out.
0 coins
Summer Green
Had similar headaches with addendum filings until I started using Certana.ai's document verification tool. You can upload both your original UCC1 and the addendum form, and it instantly checks for any inconsistencies in debtor names, filing numbers, or formatting. Saved me from multiple rejections by catching discrepancies I couldn't see manually.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•That sounds helpful - I'm tired of playing guessing games with these rejections. How quickly does it identify the issues?
0 coins
Summer Green
•Pretty much instant. Just upload the PDFs and it highlights any mismatches or potential problems. Really useful for catching those tiny details that cause rejections.
0 coins
Gael Robinson
•Never heard of that tool but sounds like it could save a lot of time and frustration.
0 coins
Edward McBride
Are you filing in a state that requires the addendum to reference the original UCC1 filing date as well as the filing number? Some jurisdictions want both pieces of information for proper indexing.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•I included the filing number but not sure about the date requirement. I'll check the state-specific instructions again.
0 coins
Edward McBride
•Yeah it varies by state. Some want just the number, others want both the number and date for cross-reference.
0 coins
Darcy Moore
UGH the filing system is so frustrating!! I've had rejections for the most ridiculous reasons - like using 'Street' instead of 'St' in an address. These systems are way too picky about minor details.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•Tell me about it! This is my third rejection and I'm no closer to figuring out what's wrong.
0 coins
TommyKapitz
•I feel your pain but the consistency requirements do serve a purpose for the indexing system.
0 coins
Darcy Moore
•I get that but the error messages could be more specific instead of just saying 'name inconsistency
0 coins
Dana Doyle
Another thing to check - make sure you're not accidentally including extra characters or hidden formatting if you copied the debtor name from another document. Sometimes there are invisible characters that cause matching problems.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•That's actually a really good point. I did copy-paste the name from the loan documents. Maybe I should retype it manually.
0 coins
Dana Doyle
•Yeah I'd definitely try retyping it fresh. Hidden characters are invisible but can mess up the matching algorithm.
0 coins
Liam Duke
Quick question - what's the total value of the additional collateral you're adding? Just making sure you don't need any special disclosure requirements for high-value equipment.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•Around $180K for the excavators and bulldozers. Nothing too crazy but definitely substantial equipment.
0 coins
Liam Duke
•Should be fine then. Was just checking since some states have different requirements for really high-value collateral.
0 coins
Edward McBride
•Good thinking - though most of those special requirements kick in at much higher amounts.
0 coins
Angel Campbell
This might sound basic but have you tried calling the filing office directly? Sometimes they can tell you exactly what's causing the rejection over the phone.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•I tried but got transferred around and nobody could give me specifics. Just kept saying to check the debtor name.
0 coins
Angel Campbell
•That's frustrating. Sometimes you get lucky and reach someone who can actually help troubleshoot.
0 coins
Darcy Moore
•Phone support is hit or miss. Half the time they just read you the same generic rejection notice.
0 coins
Gael Robinson
I've been using Certana's verification tool for a few months now after getting burned by similar issues. It's really helpful for catching document inconsistencies before you submit. Probably would have saved you these multiple rejections.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•Definitely going to check that out. These rejections are costing me time and money at this point.
0 coins
Gael Robinson
•Yeah it's worth it just for the peace of mind. Catches things you'd never notice manually reviewing documents.
0 coins
Manny Lark
Had a similar issue last month - turned out the problem was that I was using a slightly different version of the company name than what was on the original UCC1. Even though both versions were technically correct, they had to match exactly. Ended up having to pull the original filing to see the exact format used.
0 coins
Louisa Ramirez
•That makes sense. I should probably request a copy of the original filing to compare side by side.
0 coins
Manny Lark
•Exactly! The original filing is the gold standard for what format to use on any amendments or addendums.
0 coins
TommyKapitz
•Good advice. The original filing shows you exactly how the debtor name was indexed in the system.
0 coins