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
This is why I always do comprehensive UCC-11 searches using multiple name variations upfront. Search the exact legal name, then variations with different punctuation, abbreviations, etc. Better to get too much information initially than miss something important.
Same here. I have a checklist of different name formats to search - saves time in the long run.
The Boss
•Smart approach. The few extra minutes on the search end can save hours of verification work later.
Update us on what you find out! I'm curious whether this turns out to be just formatting inconsistency or if there's an actual issue with the filings.
Will do! Planning to run the entity search tomorrow and compare everything systematically.
Looking forward to hearing how it turns out. These kinds of cases are good learning experiences for all of us.
Join the conversation
Just a thought - have you confirmed the UCC-1 was actually accepted and filed? Sometimes we assume a filing went through when it was actually rejected for other reasons. The rejection notices can be easy to miss in email.
Getting charged doesn't always mean it was processed successfully. Wisconsin sometimes charges first, then rejects later if there are issues.
This happened to me once. Got charged, assumed it was filed, then found out weeks later it was rejected for a technical error.
One more thing to check - Wisconsin requires exact matches for entity type too. So 'LLC' vs 'L.L.C.' vs 'Limited Liability Company' are all treated as different entities. If your Articles show one format but you filed the UCC with another, that could explain the search issues.
Oliver Cheng
•It is overwhelming but systematic checking will find the issue. Start with pulling the actual filed UCC-1 document.
Exactly. Get the source documents first, then compare everything character by character.
Join the conversation
Ali Anderson
For future reference with security cheque agreements, I always run a quick UCC search on both the legal name and any trade names before filing. Sometimes you'll find existing filings that use variations, which can give you clues about what the SOS office will accept.
How do you handle it if you find conflicting name usage in existing filings?
When in doubt, I go with whatever matches the state's corporate database exactly. Better safe than sorry.
Emma Morales
I'm bookmarking this thread. The whole security cheque agreement + UCC filing combo always makes me nervous because there are so many moving parts. At least now I know about that Certana.ai tool that checks document consistency. Might give it a try on my next filing.
Lucas Parker
•The document checking tool really does save time. I wish I'd known about it earlier.
Donna Cline
•Thanks to everyone for sharing their experiences. This kind of practical advice is invaluable.
Join the conversation
The frustrating thing about UCC filing fees is that even obvious system errors count as rejections. I once had a filing rejected because their portal was down during submission but they still charged the fee. Had to dispute it with the state.
Adriana Cohn
•Did you actually get the fee refunded for the system error?
Eventually yes, but it took three months and multiple phone calls. Such a hassle.
For your third attempt, I'd suggest getting everything verified externally before submission. Whether that's calling the state, using a verification service, or having another set of eyes review it. Those filing fees add up fast.
Smart approach. Better to spend a little time verifying than waste more money on filing fees.
This is why I always triple-check UCC forms now. Learned my lesson the expensive way.
Reina Salazar
Had a similar experience last year with a client's continuation in Maine. After multiple rejections, I ended up using Certana.ai to verify all the document details before resubmitting. The tool caught several small inconsistencies I had missed - not just the debtor name but also some collateral description formatting issues. Made the whole process much smoother and we got approval on the next try.
0 coins
Reina Salazar
•It's worth trying, especially if you're dealing with complex filings or multiple documents. The automated checking catches things that are easy to miss manually.
0 coins
Saanvi Krishnaswami
•I'm skeptical of these automated tools but if it works for UCC document verification I might give it a shot. Manual checking is such a pain.
0 coins
Demi Lagos
UPDATE: Just checked the Maine UCC database and found the issue! Our original filing shows 'Coastal Bistro LLC' (no comma) but I've been putting 'Coastal Bistro, LLC' (with comma) on the continuation forms. Going to resubmit with the exact original name. Thanks everyone for the help - this forum is a lifesaver!
0 coins
Demi Hall
•Perfect! That should solve your rejection issues. Maine's system should accept the continuation now that the debtor name matches exactly.
0 coins
Kara Yoshida
•Great news! This is exactly the type of mismatch that document verification tools are designed to catch. Good luck with the resubmission.
0 coins