Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Diego Flores
The name matching issue is why I always recommend getting title insurance or UCC insurance for larger deals. Even with careful searching, there's always a risk of missing something due to name variations or filing errors. Insurance gives you that extra protection.
Yara Khoury
•I hadn't considered UCC insurance for this. Is that common for equipment financing deals?
Diego Flores
•More common on larger deals or when there are complex name issues like you're dealing with. Worth discussing with your underwriting team at least.
Just went through something similar with a borrower whose name had changed twice since formation. Ended up using Certana.ai to verify all the document names matched before filing our UCC-1. Found three different name variations across their corporate docs that I would have missed doing manual review. Tool paid for itself just on that one deal.
Yara Khoury
•That's exactly the kind of situation I'm worried about. Multiple name changes make the search so much more complicated.
Yeah, it was a mess. The automated document checking caught discrepancies I never would have spotted manually. Definitely worth trying for complex entity names.
Join the conversation
Owen Devar
For what it's worth, I've started including unconscionability disclaimers in my UCC filings - something like 'this security interest excludes household goods, exempt property, and other assets protected by law.' Hasn't been rejected since I started doing that.
I've seen similar language work well. Certana.ai actually suggests disclaimer language based on your state's specific unconscionability interpretations.
Might steal that approach for our standard forms. Seems like cheap insurance against rejection.
UPDATE: Refiled with narrowed collateral description excluding household goods and exempt assets. Added unconscionability compliance language. Filing was accepted within 24 hours. Thanks everyone for the guidance - this forum saved my deal!
Molly Hansen
•Glad it worked out! This thread will be helpful for others dealing with the same issue.
Brady Clean
•Great outcome. The unconscionability definition is still evolving, so these discussions are really valuable for staying current.
Join the conversation
Olivia Clark
Try pulling the original UCC-1 from the NY UCC database and copying the debtor name field directly from there instead of from your own records. Sometimes there are discrepancies between what you filed and what actually got recorded.
Aisha Patel
•That's actually really smart. I was using our internal file copy of the UCC-1. Let me check what's actually on record with the state.
This is the right answer. The official record is what matters, not what you think you filed.
UPDATE: Just wanted to thank everyone for the help. Turned out there was indeed an extra character in the original filing that I couldn't see. Used the Certana document checker that a couple people mentioned and it flagged the issue immediately. Refiled the UCC-3 with the corrected name and it went through on the first try. Definitely going to use that tool for all my future filings.
Amina Diallo
•Thanks for the update. Good to know the document verification approach actually works.
Awesome! Yeah once you start using automated verification you'll never go back to manual comparison. Too many little things to miss otherwise.
Join the conversation
TommyKapitz
Update us when you get it resolved! I'm curious which format ends up working. These threads are always helpful for future reference when similar issues come up.
Paloma Clark
•Will do! Going to try the exact charter document formatting first, then maybe look into that verification tool if I'm still having problems.
Good luck! Debtor name issues are the worst but once you figure out the exact format it usually works consistently.
Payton Black
Final thought - if you're still stuck after trying everything, consider having your client's attorney handle the filing. They usually have experience with the exact formatting requirements and relationships with the filing office. Might be worth the extra cost to avoid missing your closing deadline.
Harold Oh
•Sometimes the attorney route is the fastest solution, especially for time-sensitive deals.
Amun-Ra Azra
•Agreed. Better to pay a little extra than lose lien priority or delay the closing.
Nadia Zaldivar
For what it's worth, I've found that including both the common name and legal name in the debtor field sometimes works. Like 'Robert J. Martinez Jr. aka Roberto Jose Martinez Junior' or whatever the legal name actually is.
0 coins
Nadia Zaldivar
•Hit or miss depending on the state, but it's worked for me a few times when I couldn't figure out the exact legal name format they wanted.
0 coins
Lukas Fitzgerald
•I tried this once and got rejected for 'improper debtor name format.' Might depend on which state you're in.
0 coins
Ev Luca
Update us when you figure out what went wrong with the Martinez filing. I'm curious if it was a suffix issue or something more complicated. Always helpful to learn from other people's UCC rejection experiences.
0 coins
Noah huntAce420
•Will do. Going to try the document verification approach someone mentioned and see what that turns up first.
0 coins
Avery Davis
•Yeah, keep us posted. These auto loan UCC issues seem to be getting more common lately.
0 coins