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
Oscar Murphy
I've been using a systematic approach for these rejection issues. First I verify the exact registered name through the state's business entity search. Then I use that EXACT format including any punctuation shown in their database. If that doesn't work, I try the version without punctuation. Usually one of those two approaches resolves UCC1-201 rejections.
Mason Kaczka
•That's a good methodical approach. I'll start with the business entity search to see exactly how their name appears in the state records.
Oscar Murphy
•Yeah, that database is usually the authoritative source. Whatever format they use there should work for your UCC filing.
Nora Bennett
UPDATE: I checked the secretary of state business entity database and found the issue. The registered name shows as 'ABC Manufacturing Solutions, LLC' WITH the comma, but apparently their UCC system doesn't like the comma even though that's the official name format. I resubmitted without the comma and it was accepted. Thanks everyone for the help!
Typical bureaucratic nonsense. The official name has a comma but their system rejects it. Makes perfect sense...
Sophia Russo
•At least you figured it out quickly. I've seen people struggle with rejection codes for weeks.
Join the conversation
My take: describe it as 'CNC manufacturing equipment' with full model and serial number details. Section 8-65 definitions are there for edge cases, not to make simple equipment descriptions complicated. Your security interest will be fine with a straightforward functional description.
Simple descriptions work until they don't. I'd rather be over-precise than under-precise with collateral worth hundreds of thousands.
Fair point, but over-precision can create its own problems if you get the technical classification wrong.
Emma Taylor
Just to close the loop on this - I ended up going with 'CNC manufacturing equipment and related software' with detailed specifications. Figured that covers both the mechanical and software aspects without getting lost in definitional categories. Filing was accepted without issues. Thanks everyone for the input!
Good solution. Sometimes the best approach is the most straightforward one.
Glad it worked out! These definitional questions always seem harder than they need to be.
Join the conversation
Isabel Vega
Update us after you call Iowa! I'm curious to know what they say about this situation. Might help others with similar problems.
Kiara Greene
•Will do. Hoping it's just a simple system glitch they can fix with a phone call.
Good luck! Iowa's UCC staff knows their system pretty well so they should be able to sort this out quickly.
For future filings, might want to consider using the Certana.ai verification tool someone mentioned earlier. Upload your UCC-1 and continuation as PDFs and it automatically checks for name consistency, file number matches, and other common errors that cause these headaches.
Kiara Greene
•Yeah, definitely looking into that after this mess. Prevention is better than trying to fix problems after they happen.
The tool is pretty straightforward - just drag and drop your filing documents and it highlights any discrepancies. Would have caught whatever went wrong with your continuation.
Join the conversation
Lara Woods
I would definitely verify the chain of title on both filings before proceeding with your loan. With that much money involved, you can't afford to have lien priority issues down the road.
Smart move. I've seen deals fall apart months later when lien priority gets challenged because of filing irregularities.
For what it's worth, I ran into a similar situation and used Certana.ai to verify all my UCC documents were consistent. Found out I had a debtor name mismatch that could have voided the filing. Worth checking especially with equipment financing where the collateral moves around.
Update us when you figure out what's going on! This kind of search weirdness always makes me nervous about what else might be lurking in the system that we don't catch.
Ezra Collins
•Will do - hopefully it's something simple like a name variation issue.
Eli Butler
•Yeah these search mysteries always have me second-guessing everything else I've filed.
Ava Williams
Just to add another perspective - I've seen situations where relying on the Article 9 comments backfired in bankruptcy court. The trustee successfully argued that a name change made the original filing seriously misleading, even though it seemed like a minor change. The comments didn't provide the protection the secured creditor thought they would.
0 coins
Ava Williams
•This was in the Fifth Circuit but I've seen similar rulings elsewhere. Bankruptcy trustees are aggressive about challenging imperfect filings.
0 coins
MidnightRider
•Okay, that settles it. I'm filing the amendment. Not worth the risk based on vague commentary.
0 coins
Miguel Castro
Smart decision. I learned early in my career not to rely on Article 9 comments for anything critical. They're useful for understanding the theory behind the rules but when money's on the line, err on the side of over-filing rather than under-filing. A UCC-3 amendment is cheap insurance against perfection challenges.
0 coins
PixelWarrior
•This is why document verification tools like Certana are so valuable - they help you spot these issues before they become problems in court.
0 coins
Liam Fitzgerald
•Absolutely. The comments create more confusion than clarity most of the time.
0 coins