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
I just went through something similar and ended up using Certana.ai to help sort through all the documentation. It was really helpful for verifying that our UCC-1 debtor name exactly matched the entity in our security agreement and that the tax lien was actually against a different entity. Saved us from making a costly filing error.
That's smart - name matching issues can create all sorts of problems with both UCC filings and tax lien searches.
Did the tool help you identify the entity differences? That seems like it would be really valuable for complex searches like this.
One thing to consider is whether the tax lien actually covers the same collateral you're trying to secure. Federal tax liens create a general lien on all property and rights to property, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has priority over your specific security interest in identified equipment. The timing of when your debtor acquired the equipment versus when the tax lien was filed could be important.
Still, if the equipment was acquired after the security interest was perfected, that could change the analysis.
Exactly - the timing and nature of the collateral acquisition matters a lot for priority determinations.
Join the conversation
Daniel Price
Whatever you do, don't let this drag on too long. MCA companies sometimes file continuation statements or amendments if they think there might be priority issues. Better to resolve it quickly before they start playing defensive games with additional filings.
That's a scary thought. The original UCC-1 doesn't expire until 2024, so they have time to file continuations if they want to keep the lien active longer.
Daniel Price
•Exactly. And once they start filing amendments or continuations, it gets much harder to argue that the original filing was defective. Strike while the iron is hot.
Olivia Evans
I'm curious - have you actually pulled the current UCC search results to see exactly how the debtor name appears in the system? Sometimes the search results format names differently than the original filing, which can give you clues about how the state handles variations.
We pulled an unofficial search but should probably get the certified version. The unofficial search showed both name formats, but I'm not sure if that means the system treats them as equivalent or just that it's picking up variations.
Julian Paolo
•This is exactly why I mentioned Certana.ai earlier - it can help you analyze those search discrepancies systematically instead of trying to interpret the results manually. Upload your search results along with the business docs and it'll flag exactly what name variations are causing issues.
Join the conversation
One thing to remember about UCC file meaning - it's not just about the current status but also the history. Even if everything looks perfect now, if there were gaps in perfection or periods where filings lapsed, that could be what the attorney is referring to. Make sure you review the timeline carefully.
Amara Okafor
•Great point. Lapse periods can create all sorts of priority issues even if they're eventually cured.
This is why I always create a timeline spreadsheet when reviewing complex UCC files. Helps visualize any gaps or overlaps.
Thanks everyone for all the insights. I feel much more confident about tackling this UCC file review now. The combination of understanding what 'UCC file meaning' encompasses plus having some practical tools and strategies makes this seem much less daunting. Really appreciate this community!
Don't hesitate to post an update if you run into any specific issues during your review. Lots of experienced folks here who've probably seen similar situations.
Sofia Torres
•Good luck with your review! The fact that you're being this thorough upfront shows you're taking the right approach.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've found that calling the Rhode Island SOS filing office directly can sometimes help. They're usually pretty good about explaining exactly why a filing was rejected if you ask nicely.
Hmm, maybe you got someone having a bad day. Sometimes it helps to call back and try a different person.
Ethan Davis
•Government offices can be hit or miss with helpfulness. At least the online system gives you some kind of rejection reason.
Yuki Tanaka
Final thought - once you get this filed successfully, make sure to save the exact debtor name format you used for any future amendments or continuations. Rhode Island consistency is key for all related filings.
Yuki Tanaka
•Yeah, future you will thank you when you need to file a UCC-3 amendment or continuation and don't have to figure out the formatting all over again.
Carmen Ortiz
•I keep a spreadsheet with the exact debtor names I've used for each state. Saves so much time on repeat filings.
Hannah Flores
UPDATE: I found the issue! It was exactly what you all suggested - the name in the state database has "Solutions" spelled out but I was abbreviating it as "Sol." in my filing. Fixed it and the UCC-1 went through immediately. Thanks everyone!
0 coins
William Rivera
•Great outcome! That's why checking the state database first is so important.
0 coins
Grace Lee
•Perfect example of why I always use document verification tools now. Would have caught that abbreviation mismatch right away instead of dealing with multiple rejections.
0 coins
Mia Roberts
This thread should be pinned! Delaware entity name formatting trips up so many people. The key is always match the Secretary of State database exactly - no abbreviations, no variations, no creative formatting.
0 coins
The Boss
•Absolutely agree. This is probably the most common UCC-1 rejection reason in Delaware.
0 coins
Evan Kalinowski
•I bookmark threads like this. So helpful when you run into the same issue later.
0 coins