UCC1 filling rejection - debtor name formatting issue

Thanks, I did try the 'and' version but maybe I had extra spaces or something. I'll check the SOS business entity search again to see exactly how they have it formatted in their system.

This is so frustrating when you're trying to perfect a lien and the system keeps rejecting over tiny formatting differences. I had similar issues with a company that had 'Inc.' vs 'Incorporated' mismatches.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that tool. Does it actually connect to the SOS databases to verify the exact formatting they expect?

Yeah, you just upload your PDFs and it runs an automated check against the official records. Much faster than manually comparing everything and missing tiny differences like spaces or punctuation.

That sounds too good to be true but if it works it would save so much time. I've had clients get really annoyed when their UCC1 filling keeps getting rejected over name formatting issues.

Good point about trailing spaces. The portal interface doesn't always make it obvious when there are extra characters that shouldn't be there.

I always copy the name from the SOS entity search results and paste it directly into the UCC1 form. That way I know the formatting matches exactly what they have on file.

I get the frustration but electronic filing is still faster overall once you know the quirks. Paper UCC1s could take weeks to process and you'd have no idea if there were issues until you got them back in the mail.

Maybe faster but definitely more confusing when you're dealing with formatting rejections that don't make sense. At least with paper you could include a note explaining any unusual circumstances.

I should try that. I was hesitant to call because I figured they'd just tell me to read the filing instructions, but maybe they can be more specific about the name formatting issue.

The phone support is actually pretty helpful for UCC1 filling issues. They deal with debtor name problems all the time and can usually spot the formatting issue right away.

Just make sure you have your rejection notice handy when you call. They'll want to reference the specific error code or message you received.

It's a new filing for equipment financing. The incorporation was just last year so there shouldn't be any name changes, but I'll verify the entity is still active and hasn't had any amendments.

Good idea to check. Even recently incorporated entities sometimes file amendments to correct minor issues with their original filing.

I've been using 'LLC' since that's what's on the incorporation documents, but maybe the SOS system expects it spelled out. I'll try that variation next.

This is another reason why I use Certana.ai's verification tool - it catches these entity designation mismatches before you submit. I had a similar issue where the system wanted 'Limited Liability Company' but all my documents showed 'LLC'.

Exactly! The error message just says 'debtor name inconsistency' but doesn't specify what part of the name is wrong or how to fix it.

Right, and then you're stuck trying different variations and hoping one works. It's especially stressful when you have a client waiting for their lien to be perfected.

I've just been using the business name without the state. Should I be including something like 'a Delaware LLC' at the end?

It depends on your state's requirements. Check the UCC1 filling instructions for your jurisdiction - they usually specify whether to include the state of organization in the debtor name field.

I'll try that. I was just using the regular business entity search but maybe there's a more specific search function for UCC purposes.

The exact name search is definitely the way to go. I've found that sometimes the business entity search results don't show the exact formatting that the UCC system expects.

This is why I always recommend using automated verification tools like Certana.ai before submitting. It eliminates all this guesswork and tells you exactly what formatting issues need to be fixed.

Will do! I'm going to try the suggestions about using 'and' instead of '&' and double-checking the exact SOS database formatting. Hopefully one of those approaches works.

Yeah please post an update. I have a client with a similar business name structure and I'm dreading having to deal with the same formatting issues.