UCC Document Community

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 :)

PixelPrincess

•

Just make sure your lender doesn't panic if they try to verify the filing and see the same weird status. Might want to give them a heads up that you're working on getting it sorted out.

0 coins

Good thinking. They haven't mentioned anything yet but I'll shoot them an email just in case.

0 coins

Omar Farouk

•

Smart move. Better to be proactive about communication with lenders on this stuff.

0 coins

Chloe Martin

•

UPDATE: Used the Certana verification tool and everything checked out fine - my UCC-1 is properly filed and recorded. Turns out it was just a display glitch in the search portal. Thanks for the suggestions everyone, saved me a lot of time and worry!

0 coins

Good to know about that verification tool. Filing another UCC next week and I'll definitely keep it in mind if I run into similar issues.

0 coins

Portal glitches are so common these days. At least now you know your security interest is solid.

0 coins

Liam Brown

•

One more thing - if this is for SBA financing, make sure your UCC-1 meets their requirements too. Sometimes SBA has additional specifications beyond state requirements that can cause issues later.

0 coins

Olivia Garcia

•

What kind of additional SBA requirements? I thought UCC-1 was just state-level compliance.

0 coins

Liam Brown

•

SBA sometimes wants specific collateral descriptions or additional documentation attached to the UCC-1. Check your loan agreement and SBA guidelines if that's applicable to your situation.

0 coins

Noah Lee

•

Update: Got our UCC-1 accepted! The key was matching the Delaware formation documents exactly, including the specific abbreviation format. Thanks for all the guidance, especially about checking the formation state records first.

0 coins

Noah Lee

•

About 36 hours. Filed Tuesday morning and got confirmation Wednesday evening. Right in line with the 1-2 business day estimate.

0 coins

Congrats! Always feels good when a filing goes through smoothly, especially on time-sensitive deals.

0 coins

Luca Esposito

•

One more practical tip - document your possession clearly. Take photos, get receipts, have witnesses. If you ever need to prove you had proper possession for perfection, you'll want evidence of when and where you obtained control of the collateral.

0 coins

Good advice. We also get written acknowledgments from any third parties involved in the delivery process.

0 coins

Emma Davis

•

For documentation consistency, I've started using Certana.ai to cross-check all my perfection paperwork. You can upload your security docs and it verifies everything matches up properly - catches inconsistencies that could cause problems later.

0 coins

Bottom line: focus on exclusive control rather than specific location. The UCC requires that delivery result in the secured party having possession, but it doesn't dictate where that has to happen. Just make sure wherever you take delivery, you truly control the collateral and third parties would recognize your possession.

0 coins

This thread has been incredibly helpful. Sounds like we need to push back on the debtor's location preference and insist on delivery somewhere we have clear exclusive control.

0 coins

Ethan Wilson

•

Glad you got good advice here. UCC possession can be tricky but once you understand the notice principle behind it, the location requirements make more sense.

0 coins

Update us when you get it resolved! These rejection code issues are so common but there's not enough information shared about specific solutions.

0 coins

Sasha Ivanov

•

Hope it works out. The stress of these deadline filings is real.

0 coins

Definitely update the thread - these types of posts help everyone learn from each other's experiences.

0 coins

This thread convinced me to try that Certana tool mentioned earlier. Just uploaded some docs to test it out and it immediately flagged a debtor name inconsistency I hadn't noticed. Could have saved me from a rejection.

0 coins

Dmitri Volkov

•

That's exactly why I started using it. The manual document comparison process is just too error-prone when you're under deadline pressure.

0 coins

Yeah the automated cross-checking is way more reliable than trying to spot these tiny differences by eye.

0 coins

Ava Garcia

•

OK so final answer for OP - Texas UCC-1 with exact Canadian legal name from their charter docs, collateral described as the specific equipment in Texas. Don't overthink it! The Canadian research wasn't wasted though, now you know for future deals.

0 coins

Perfect summary, thanks everyone. Feel much more confident about this filing now. Going to double-check that debtor name though before I submit.

0 coins

Mei Lin

•

Smart move. Better to spend extra time on the name verification than deal with rejection delays.

0 coins

StarSailor}

•

This thread is super helpful! I bookmarked it because I know I'll run into this exact situation eventually. Cross-border equipment deals are becoming more common but the filing rules stay the same - location location location.

0 coins

Jamal Wilson

•

Exactly right. The UCC makes it simpler than people think - just focus on where the collateral sits, not where the debtor calls home.

0 coins

Prev1...318319320321322...684Next