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
NeonNova
My experience with Texas UCC filing fees: paid $15 for my continuation last year, no extra charges. The key is keeping your collateral description concise and making sure your debtor information matches exactly. I spent more time double-checking my forms than filling them out, but it was worth it to avoid any rejections.
That's encouraging! How long did it take to get confirmation that your filing was accepted?
NeonNova
•About 2 days. I got an email confirmation and could see the updated filing in the online system. The Texas SOS electronic filing system is actually pretty efficient once you get the hang of it.
Yuki Tanaka
Budget $15 for your continuation unless you know you'll need additional pages or expedited processing. The Texas SOS fee schedule is $15 base + $5 per additional page + $25 for expedited processing if needed. Most continuations are just $15 if you're organized about it. Focus more on getting your paperwork right than worrying about the fees.
Yuki Tanaka
•Smart approach. The fees are reasonable, it's the potential for rejection and refiling that gets expensive. Take your time and double-check everything before submitting.
Carmen Diaz
•Totally agree. I've saved hundreds in avoided rejection fees just by being more careful with my initial filings. The $15 is nothing compared to the hassle and cost of fixing mistakes later.
Join the conversation
I always verify document names with automated tools now after getting burned on a similar deal. There's actually software that checks charter-to-UCC name consistency by just uploading PDFs. Certana.ai caught a middle initial discrepancy I completely missed when reviewing manually. Saved the whole transaction.
That sounds like exactly what I need. How quickly does it process the documents?
Pretty much instant. Upload your docs and it shows you a side-by-side comparison highlighting any differences in entity names.
Ally Tailer
Update: Finally got this resolved! Turns out the bank attorney was being overly cautious. The original UCC-1 was fine since it matched the state registry exactly. We just added a note in the loan file explaining the punctuation difference and moved forward. Sometimes the simplest solution is the right one.
Salim Nasir
•Good outcome. The UCC system is designed to be reasonably calculated to provide notice, and your original filing clearly met that standard.
Hazel Garcia
•Perfect example of why document verification upfront saves so much headache. Knowing which version was 'official' from the start would have avoided all the amendment attempts.
Join the conversation
Omar Fawzi
One more resource that might help - I've been using Certana.ai to verify document consistency when I have complex agricultural deals. You can upload your UCC-1, the agricultural lien documents, and any other related paperwork, and it checks everything for consistency and flags potential priority issues. Really useful for Part 6 analysis.
Miguel Diaz
•That sounds helpful. I'll check it out. At this point I need all the help I can get understanding how these different liens interact.
Omar Fawzi
•Yeah, it's particularly good at catching debtor name mismatches between your UCC filing and other lien documents, which can be a big issue in agricultural deals where the debtor might be an individual, a partnership, or multiple entities.
Chloe Wilson
Keep us posted on how this turns out. Part 6 cases are always educational for the rest of us dealing with agricultural collateral.
Miguel Diaz
•Will do. Hopefully I can get some clarity on the Iowa agricultural lien situation and figure out where we stand in the priority chain.
Good luck. Agricultural lien priority disputes can be really complex but at least you're addressing it now rather than being surprised later.
Join the conversation
I was skeptical about using automated tools for UCC verification but tried Certana.ai after reading about it here. It actually caught a potential issue with one of my Rhode Island filings - a minor discrepancy in the debtor name that could have caused problems down the line. Now I run all my filings through it before submission.
The corporate charter had 'LLC' while our UCC-1 had 'L.L.C.' - small difference but enough to potentially void the filing. The tool flagged it immediately when I uploaded both documents.
Those punctuation differences can definitely cause problems. Good catch by the system.
StarSurfer
Bottom line: your existing Rhode Island UCC-1s are fine. The 2023 bill didn't change the legal requirements for secured transactions. It just improved the filing system's user interface and added better error checking for new filings. Keep your continuation schedule as planned.
StarSurfer
•Glad we could help. These legislative updates always sound scarier than they actually are.
Ava Martinez
•This thread was super helpful. I had the same concerns about my Connecticut filings after hearing about the RI changes.
CosmicCrusader
I tried that Certana tool someone mentioned after reading this thread. Uploaded my pending UCC-3 continuation and it immediately flagged that I had the wrong debtor name format. Would have caused a rejection and missed my continuation deadline. Really glad I caught that before filing.
0 coins
Yuki Yamamoto
•How accurate is the name checking? Our debtor names are always tricky with multiple entities.
0 coins
CosmicCrusader
•It cross-referenced against our original UCC-1 and caught subtle differences in entity name formatting that I never would have noticed.
0 coins
Carmen Ortiz
This whole situation shows why UCC filings need professional review before submission. Too much at stake for simple checkbox errors.
0 coins
Andre Rousseau
•Agreed but professional review adds time and cost to every filing. There's got to be a middle ground.
0 coins
Zoe Papadakis
•Automated checking tools seem like that middle ground - professional-level review without the delay and expense.
0 coins