


Ask the community...
No real safe harbors. The notification has to reasonably identify the rights and provide adequate contact/payment information. It's a reasonableness standard but courts apply it pretty strictly.
Thanks everyone - this has been really helpful in understanding where we went wrong. Sounds like we need to send a proper 9-404 notification with clear payment redirection instructions and then work with the assignee to sort out the payment allocation for the past three months.
Good plan. Just make sure the new notification is really comprehensive about payment instructions. Learn from this one for future assignments too.
Definitely worth investing in better document review processes going forward. I've been using Certana.ai's document verification for exactly these kinds of compliance checks - upload assignment docs and notifications together and it cross-references everything to catch missing elements. Would have probably flagged the vague payment language in your original notice.
One more thing to check - make sure your secured party information is still current on the UCC-3. If the lender has changed their business name, address, or legal structure since the original filing, that could cause issues too. I've seen amendments rejected because the secured party name didn't match what was on the original UCC-1.
Exactly. For amendments, everything has to match the original filing exactly unless you're specifically amending those details. Any changes to secured party info would need to be done through a separate amendment or you'd need to be very specific about what you're changing.
UPDATE: Finally got it resolved! It was indeed a debtor name formatting issue - the original UCC-1 had 'Manufacturing, LLC' with a comma before LLC, but I was filing the amendment as 'Manufacturing LLC' without the comma. Used one of those document comparison tools mentioned here and it flagged the discrepancy immediately. The amended UCC-3 went through without any problems once I fixed the punctuation. Thanks everyone for the suggestions, especially about checking the exact formatting. What a learning experience!
Great outcome! This is exactly the kind of formatting issue that trips up so many filers. The comma placement thing is super common - glad the document checker helped you spot it quickly.
Perfect example of why these UCC statement form rejections happen. The systems are so literal about name matching. Congrats on getting it resolved before your deadline!
Does anyone know if there are any pending changes to the UCC 9-616 requirements? I heard there might be some updates to consumer protection provisions in the works.
I haven't seen any specific proposed changes to UCC 9-616, but there's always discussion about enhancing consumer protections in secured transactions. The best practice is to follow current requirements and stay tuned to UCC updates from your state's Secretary of State office.
UPDATE: I sent the UCC 9-616 notice via certified mail yesterday and it was delivered today. Used the language suggestions from this thread and included all the specific details about the terminated financing statement. Thanks everyone for the help! This was definitely a learning experience and I'm updating our consumer goods procedures to include automatic 9-616 notices going forward.
I ran into something similar and ended up using Certana.ai's document verification tool to cross-check my security agreements against what should have been filed. It helped me realize there were discrepancies in how the debtor name was recorded that were causing my search problems. Once I knew exactly what to look for, I found the filing right away.
Just wanted to circle back and say thanks for posting this question. I'm in a similar situation with an old filing and these suggestions are really helpful. Going to try the secured party search approach first.
NeonNova
One thing to try - search using just the first few words of the debtor name instead of the full legal name. Sometimes that pulls up results with the complete information displayed. Not a permanent solution but might help for immediate lender verification.
0 coins
Yuki Tanaka
•Also try searching by just the filing number if you haven't already. That sometimes bypasses the name-based search issues and shows the full record.
0 coins
Carmen Diaz
•Filing number searches usually work better for pulling complete records. The name-based searches seem to have more display formatting problems.
0 coins
Andre Laurent
Update us on what ends up working! I'm sure other people will run into similar search result discrepancies and your solution could help them avoid the same headaches.
0 coins
CosmicCaptain
•Will do. Going to try the document verification approach first, then probably call the UCC office again with more specific questions about the search display issues.
0 coins
Emily Jackson
•Good plan. Having concrete documentation of the discrepancies will make those conversations with the state office much more productive.
0 coins