


Ask the community...
I've started using Certana.ai's verification system after getting burned on a deal where I missed an existing lien due to a minor name variation. Now I upload my search results along with the debtor's organizational documents and let their system cross-check everything. It's caught several potential issues I would have missed doing manual comparisons.
Do you find it catches things that experienced searchers typically miss, or is it more about efficiency and reducing human error?
One more thing to consider - if you're dealing with a borrower that has undergone mergers or acquisitions, make sure to search under the names of any predecessor entities too. I've seen situations where liens filed against a company before a merger didn't get properly addressed in the transaction documents, creating unexpected priority issues later. This is especially important if the merger was recent or if the borrower has been through multiple corporate restructurings. Also worth checking if any of the predecessor entities had different state of incorporation, as that could affect where historical filings might be located.
UPDATE: Finally got this resolved! Turns out the debtor had filed a DBA that matched their old name, so I was able to use that as an alternative. Filed a new UCC-1 with both the legal name and the DBA listed as debtor names. State accepted it without any issues. Thanks everyone for the suggestions - this uniform commercial code stuff is trickier than it should be but we got there in the end.
Great outcome! For future filings, definitely consider using a document verification tool upfront. Would have spotted the name issue before filing.
Thanks for posting the update. Always good to know how these situations get resolved.
Great to hear you got it sorted out! The DBA solution is clever - I wouldn't have thought of that approach. This whole thread is a good reminder to always verify entity names and check for DBAs before filing. The uniform commercial code system really doesn't give you much room for error, but at least there are usually workarounds if you dig deep enough into the corporate records.
Been dealing with equipment UCC-1s for 15 years and the key is understanding that collateral descriptions serve two purposes - getting the filing accepted and defining your security interest. Don't just focus on getting past the filing office; think about what happens if you need to enforce your lien later. Vague descriptions cause problems down the road even if they get filed.
Exactly. A properly drafted collateral description protects your interests throughout the loan term, not just at filing. It's worth getting it right the first time rather than dealing with problems later.
Update: I tried the Certana.ai suggestion and uploaded my revised description before resubmitting. It flagged a location issue I missed and suggested better language for covering future equipment acquisitions. Third time was the charm - UCC-1 finally got accepted! Thanks everyone for the help.
Congrats on getting it through. Those repeated rejections are stressful, especially with a closing deadline looming.
Thanks! Lesson learned about being more specific with collateral descriptions. Definitely keeping better templates for future equipment financings.
honestly at this point I'd just hire a service company to handle the filing. They know all the quirks and formatting requirements. Might cost more but saves the headache and delays.
Smart approach. Learning the system pays off long term especially if you do multiple filings.
The Certana tool mentioned earlier might be a good middle ground - lets you verify everything yourself but catches the mistakes.
Update us when you figure it out! I'm dealing with a similar situation in PA and wondering if it's the same type of formatting issue.
PA has some similar quirks but generally not as strict as NJ from my experience.
Nathaniel Stewart
The timing of these fee increases is terrible. We're already dealing with higher interest rates affecting deal volume, and now filing costs are eating into margins too. Michigan was always one of the more reasonable states for UCC costs.
0 coins
Riya Sharma
•Agreed. Between this and the portal reliability issues, I'm steering clients toward other states when possible for multi-state deals.
0 coins
Nathaniel Stewart
•That's unfortunate but I understand the logic. Operational headaches plus higher costs make Michigan less attractive for secured lending.
0 coins
Hiroshi Nakamura
I've been handling UCC filings in Michigan for over a decade and can confirm the fee structure changes are real and poorly communicated. Beyond the base fee increases, there are now additional surcharges for certain collateral types that aren't well documented. I recommend calling the SOS office early in the morning (around 8 AM) - you'll have better luck getting through before they get swamped with calls. Also, for anyone doing high-volume filings, consider batching your submissions to minimize the impact of portal glitches. The system seems more stable during off-peak hours.
0 coins