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
One more thing to consider - make sure you understand the choice-of-law rules in your loan documents. Even though you're filing in the debtor's state of organization, your loan agreement might specify which state's laws govern the security interest. Usually not a big deal but worth double-checking for consistency.
How does that work exactly? Do you upload multiple documents?
Yeah, you can upload the corporate docs and UCC forms and it'll flag any inconsistencies. Pretty slick for avoiding the stupid mistakes that cause rejections.
Final answer: All 50 states plus DC have enacted Article 9 of the UCC. Some have minor variations in their specific implementation, but the core framework for secured transactions is uniform. For your multi-state equipment financing, file one UCC-1 in the debtor's state of organization and you'll be covered nationwide for mobile collateral. Just make sure the filing is accurate since any errors could affect the entire security interest.
Perfect summary - thanks for the definitive answer. Time to get this filing done right.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I've found that most UCC search issues come down to either name mismatches (like others mentioned) or the filing actually being rejected but the filer not realizing it. The online portals are pretty reliable for showing completed filings, so if it's not there after a month, it probably never got properly filed.
That aligns with what I'm seeing. Going to demand they provide the actual filing receipt before we move forward.
Good call. Filing receipts are the only way to be 100% sure a UCC actually got accepted into the system.
I hate to pile on but this is exactly why I run my own UCC-1 filings instead of trusting borrowers to do it correctly. Too much money at risk to rely on their filing skills. They inevitably mess up the debtor name or collateral description somehow.
Smart approach. It's worth the extra cost to know it's done right the first time.
Plus you can file it with the correct collateral description instead of the vague garbage most borrowers put on their forms
Join the conversation
Colorado really needs to upgrade their UCC search system. I've been complaining about the name matching issues for years but nothing changes. At least other states like Delaware have fuzzy search capabilities that catch common variations automatically.
Have you found any workarounds that make Colorado searches more reliable?
Not really any magic bullets. Just the systematic approach others mentioned - multiple name variations, partial searches, checking DBAs. It's tedious but necessary.
For anyone still struggling with Colorado UCC searches, I've found success with Certana.ai's document verification workflow. Upload your debtor's charter documents and any existing UCC forms you're comparing - it automatically flags name inconsistencies and potential matches you might miss. Has saved me from several potential lien priority disasters in Colorado specifically.
Definitely worth it for larger transactions. The peace of mind knowing you caught all the name variations is invaluable, especially in states like Colorado with problematic search systems.
I've been considering automated tools too. The manual search process is getting too time-consuming and error-prone for the volume of deals we're doing.
Join the conversation
Florida paralegal here - this is super common with LLC names in our system. The SOS database has character limits that sometimes force abbreviations. As long as the core identifying elements are there (Advanced, Solutions, LLC) you should be fine. I see this weekly and it's never caused perfection issues in my experience.
Thank you! That's exactly the reassurance I needed. Have you ever seen these name variations cause problems in bankruptcy or foreclosure situations?
Honestly no. The courts seem to understand that the SOS system has these quirks. As long as the filing is reasonably identifiable they don't make a big deal out of minor abbreviations.
One more suggestion - have you checked if there are any other UCC filings against this same debtor under either name variation? Sometimes seeing how other lenders filed against the same entity can give you confidence in your approach.
Yeah, if you see other filings with similar name abbreviations that haven't been challenged, that's a good sign your filing is fine too.
This is actually really smart detective work. The SOS system probably handles similar names the same way consistently.
KaiEsmeralda
Update: Started using the Certana.ai tool mentioned earlier and it's already flagged 8 loans with debtor name inconsistencies I missed in my manual review. The PDF upload process is pretty straightforward - just drag and drop your loan docs and UCC filings and it highlights the mismatches. Definitely worth checking out if you're dealing with similar SBA compliance issues.
0 coins
Debra Bai
•That's a pretty quick turnaround on finding those issues. How detailed are the reports it generates?
0 coins
KaiEsmeralda
•It shows you exactly where the name variations occur and suggests what corrections might be needed. Takes a lot of the guesswork out of figuring out which filings need UCC-3 amendments.
0 coins
Gabriel Freeman
Just wanted to add - don't forget about continuation filings if any of your UCC-1s are approaching the 5-year mark. SBA gets really cranky if liens lapse during the loan term, even if you refile immediately.
0 coins
Victoria Brown
•I set calendar reminders for 6 months before each continuation deadline. Learned that lesson the hard way too.
0 coins
Ella Knight
•Thanks everyone for the advice. I'm going to try the Certana tool for the document verification and focus on getting the larger loans cleaned up first. Will update once I get through the SBA audit process.
0 coins