


Ask the community...
Quick question - are you searching as an exact match or using the broader search options? Sometimes the broad search picks up too much noise and makes it harder to identify what's actually relevant.
I think I was using the broad search. Should I switch to exact match?
Just to follow up on the continuation question - those 2019 filings could definitely still be active if they were properly continued. UCC-1 filings are effective for 5 years, so a 2019 filing would have lapsed in 2024 unless a UCC-3 continuation was filed within 6 months before the lapse date.
Exactly. The continuation would extend effectiveness until 2029.
And if there's no continuation filed, those 2019 filings should show as lapsed in the search results.
MAKE SURE YOU FILE IN THE RIGHT STATE! This is huge. For LLCs, it's the state where they're organized (where they filed their Articles of Organization), not where they do business or where the collateral is located. I see this mistake constantly.
Still file in the state of organization for the main UCC-1. You might need fixture filings or other filings in other states depending on the collateral type and location.
Thanks everyone for all the advice! This is exactly what I needed. I'm going to triple-check the debtor name against the LLC's Articles of Organization and use one of those document verification tools mentioned to catch any errors before filing. Really appreciate the help!
You'll do fine. Just take your time and double-check everything. The first one is always the hardest.
Definitely recommend that Certana tool - it's saved me from several mistakes over the past few months. Worth every penny to avoid rejection headaches.
For a $180K equipment loan, I'd recommend getting an official UCC search report directly from the Secretary of State rather than relying on third-party services. It costs more but gives you the definitive answer and you can use it for your loan documentation. The peace of mind is worth the extra cost on a deal that size.
That's probably the smart move here. I'll order an official search report to have definitive documentation for the file.
Just wanted to follow up on this thread because I had the same issue last week. Turns out my problem was that I had filed the UCC-1 with a slightly different version of the business name than what was in their articles of incorporation. The state accepted it anyway, but the search services couldn't match it properly. I ended up using one of those document verification tools someone mentioned earlier (Certana.ai) and it immediately flagged the name discrepancy. Filed an amendment to correct it and now everything shows up consistently across all search platforms.
Name consistency is such a common issue but it can cause huge problems down the road if not caught early.
Smart move filing the amendment. Better to fix it now than deal with perfection issues later.
The UCC itself doesn't create unconscionability defenses - that comes from general contract law principles that courts apply to security agreements. But once a court finds unconscionability, your UCC filing becomes worthless because there's no valid underlying security interest to perfect.
So the filing stays on record but becomes meaningless? That seems like it could create confusion for other lenders searching the records.
I've been through this exact scenario. The key is proving that the terms were reasonable given the circumstances and that the borrower understood what they were signing. If you can show the borrower had legal counsel and time to review, it's much harder for them to claim unconscionability.
Absolutely. Attorney review is strong evidence against unconscionability. Makes it hard to claim they didn't understand the terms or had no meaningful choice.
Luis Johnson
Pro tip: if you're doing multi-state UCC filings regularly, create templates for each state's standard form with the exact formatting they want. I have a master file with Texas (exact charter match, full punctuation), Florida (legal name, flexible punctuation), California (no abbreviations), etc. Saves time and reduces errors.
0 coins
Luis Johnson
•I try to check annually or when I get an unexpected rejection. States don't always announce when they update their standard forms or portal requirements.
0 coins
Ellie Kim
•Annual review is good practice. I got burned by a Texas rule change that I didn't catch for 6 months.
0 coins
Fiona Sand
Just to close the loop on this thread - I ended up using the Certana verification tool mentioned earlier and it caught three name formatting issues across my different state filings. All three would have been rejected based on the specific requirements of each state's UCC standard forms. Filed yesterday and all three states accepted the filings this morning. Closing is back on track. Thanks for all the advice!
0 coins
Chloe Zhang
•That's awesome! The tool really does save a lot of headaches with name consistency issues.
0 coins
Aaron Boston
•Success stories like this give me hope for future multi-state deals. Thanks for sharing the resolution!
0 coins