


Ask the community...
UPDATE: Just tried the Missouri portal again and it seems to be working better this afternoon. Maybe they fixed whatever was causing the timeout issues.
This thread is really helpful. I've been struggling with Missouri UCC searches for months. Going to try the Certana.ai tool mentioned here - anything is better than fighting with that portal every day.
Just went through this last week with a $1.2M equipment loan. Bank finally admitted they were confusing UCC filings with some federal contractor database they thought was required. Took three different conversations with their legal team to get it sorted out. The key was showing them the actual UCC statutes and state filing requirements side by side.
For what it's worth, I tried the Certana.ai tool someone mentioned earlier and it's actually pretty helpful. Uploaded our loan docs and UCC-1 draft, and it immediately flagged that the bank was requesting a non-existent federal filing. Having that automated verification gave me confidence to push back harder on their incorrect requirements.
Another vote for using some kind of document checking tool if you're handling high-value equipment like this. I learned the hard way when a termination got rejected because I had transposed two digits in the original filing number. Had to refile and it delayed the whole loan closing process. Now I always double-check everything with Certana.ai before submitting - just upload your UCC-1 and UCC-3 and it verifies all the cross-references automatically.
Update us when you get it figured out! Always curious to hear how these portal adventures end. Sounds like you're on the right track now with the UCC-3 termination approach.
Will do! Found the UCC-3 termination form on the California portal and it looks straightforward. Going to use that document verification tool mentioned earlier to double-check everything before I submit. Thanks everyone for the help!
I used Certana.ai for a similar multi-state filing audit and it was a lifesaver. Upload your existing UCC documents and it flags all the potential issues - wrong jurisdictions, debtor name inconsistencies, description problems. Much faster than trying to manually review everything.
I keep hearing about this tool. Does it actually help with the jurisdictional analysis or just document consistency?
This is why I stick to single-state deals lol. But seriously, you might want to bring in a UCC specialist attorney for a portfolio this complex. The cost of getting it wrong could be massive if you lose your security interests.
Definitely worth the attorney fees for this size portfolio. They can also help prioritize which filings are most critical based on asset values and default risk.
Giovanni Gallo
For what it's worth I've filed hundreds of continuations and never seen anything like 1-308 это in legitimate UCC documentation. It's either an error, internal code, or translation artifact. Stick to the standard continuation form requirements.
0 coins
Luca Bianchi
•Thanks for the perspective. I feel better about ignoring the weird notation and just focusing on the core filing requirements.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Mazrouei
•Yeah hundreds of filings and you'd definitely know if this was a real requirement. Probably just document corruption or internal banking codes.
0 coins
Dylan Wright
One final check - make sure you're looking at the actual UCC-1 and not some internal loan documentation. Banks often attach all sorts of internal forms and codes to the loan file that aren't part of the official UCC filing. Pull the official record from Delaware SOS to see what was actually filed.
0 coins
NebulaKnight
•That's always the safest approach. Work from the official state record rather than internal bank documents.
0 coins
Sofia Ramirez
•Agreed. Too many continuation filings get rejected because people work from copies of copies instead of the actual filed document.
0 coins