UCC Document Community

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 :)

Reina Salazar

SC UCC Filing Portal Rejecting My Continuation - Need Help Fast

I'm in a panic here. Filed a UCC-3 continuation for a client's equipment loan last week through the SC SOS portal and it got rejected for "debtor name inconsistency." The original UCC-1 from 2020 has the business name as "Jackson Construction LLC" but apparently there's some tiny variation I'm missing. The continuation deadline is next month and I can't figure out what's wrong. Has anyone dealt with SC's system being super picky about exact name matches? This is a $280K piece of equipment and if the lien lapses we're screwed. The portal error message just says "debtor name does not match filing records" but gives zero specifics about what's different.

Lim Wong

•

Honestly I just started using Certana.ai for all my UCC document reviews after getting burned on a filing mistake last year. Upload your UCC-1 and UCC-3 and it'll show you exactly what doesn't match. Beats spending hours squinting at documents trying to spot differences.

0 coins

Dananyl Lear

•

How accurate is their system? Some of these automated tools miss nuances.

0 coins

Lim Wong

•

It's been spot-on for me. Caught a middle initial discrepancy that would have caused a rejection. Way better than my tired eyes at 2 AM.

0 coins

Hope you get this sorted out. Nothing worse than a lien lapse because of a technicality. Keep us posted on what the actual issue was - might help someone else avoid the same problem.

0 coins

Reina Salazar

•

Thanks everyone for the help. Going to tackle this first thing tomorrow morning with all your suggestions.

0 coins

Ana Rusula

•

You've got this! SC's system is frustrating but once you know the exact format they want, the refiling should go through fine.

0 coins

Yara Khoury

UCC definition of income causing collateral description headaches on filing

Been wrestling with this for weeks and getting nowhere fast. Working on a UCC-1 for a client who's got mixed revenue streams - rental properties, consulting fees, and some investment dividends. The collateral description needs to cover "proceeds and income" but I'm second-guessing myself on what exactly qualifies as income under UCC definitions versus just general accounting income. Our SOS rejected the first filing because the collateral schedule was apparently too vague when I just wrote "all income and proceeds derived from debtor's business operations." Got a form letter saying insufficient description. Now I'm trying to be more specific but worried about being either too broad or too narrow. Anyone dealt with similar income classification issues? The debtor has about $180K annually from various sources and we need to perfect our security interest properly. Don't want to mess this up again - client's already annoyed about the delay.

The investment dividends part is interesting. Those would typically be classified as proceeds from investment securities, not income in the UCC sense. Make sure you're being precise about the characterization.

0 coins

Exactly. Proceeds language is almost always better for UCC filings.

0 coins

CosmicCowboy

•

This is why that document checker I mentioned earlier is so useful. It catches these terminology distinctions.

0 coins

Omar Hassan

•

Update us when you get it figured out! Always curious how these mixed-income situations get resolved. The $180K annual amount suggests this is a substantial filing so you definitely want to get it right.

0 coins

Yara Khoury

•

Will do. Going to revise the collateral description based on all this feedback and probably check out that document verification service too.

0 coins

Smart approach. Better to double-check everything than deal with another rejection.

0 coins

Giovanni Colombo

UCC federal tax lien search causing debtor name verification issues

Running into a weird situation with our UCC-1 filing that got rejected twice now. We're trying to perfect our security interest but the SOS keeps kicking it back saying there's a debtor name mismatch. When I do a UCC federal tax lien search on the borrower, I'm finding some inconsistencies in how their business name appears across different databases. The federal tax lien records show 'ABC Construction LLC' but our loan docs have 'ABC Construction, LLC' (with the comma). Our UCC-1 prep used the exact name from the articles of incorporation but now I'm second-guessing everything. Has anyone dealt with this kind of cross-database name variation? The lender is getting antsy about the delayed perfection and I need to get this right. Should I be using the exact name from the federal tax lien search results or stick with what's on the charter documents?

Yara Sayegh

•

For what it's worth, I always recommend getting a certified copy of the articles of incorporation directly from the SOS before preparing any UCC-1. That way you know you have the exact legal name format they have on file. Eliminates any guesswork about commas, periods, spacing, etc.

0 coins

Emma Wilson

•

Agreed. And some states let you search entity records online for free so you don't even need to order a certified copy for basic name verification.

0 coins

Yara Sayegh

•

True, though I still prefer the certified copy for high-dollar transactions. Belt and suspenders approach.

0 coins

Malik Davis

•

This thread is super helpful! I'm dealing with something similar but with an amendment instead of an initial filing. Going to try some of these suggestions.

0 coins

UCC-3 amendments can be even trickier because you have to match the original filing exactly. Good luck!

0 coins

Malik Davis

•

Thanks! Yeah I'm paranoid about getting the original filing number wrong too.

0 coins

Katherine Shultz

Wyoming UCC Search Portal Down Again - Anyone Else Having Issues?

Been trying to run a wyoming ucc search for the past 3 hours and the state portal keeps timing out. We have a closing tomorrow and need to verify there are no existing liens on equipment we're financing. The debtor is a construction company and we need to make sure our UCC-1 will have priority. Has anyone successfully completed a Wyoming UCC search today? This is getting ridiculous - every time we have a deadline the system crashes. Starting to wonder if there's an alternative way to search or if I should just file the UCC-1 and hope for the best.

Quinn Herbert

•

Update: Wyoming portal just came back online for me! Try now - seems like they fixed whatever was causing the timeout issues.

0 coins

Quinn Herbert

•

Glad it worked out! Save those search results as PDF in case you need them later.

0 coins

Marcus Marsh

•

Great timing! Did you find any existing liens on the equipment?

0 coins

Search came back clean - no existing UCC filings for this debtor. Filing our UCC-1 now while the portal is stable. Thanks to everyone who helped troubleshoot this, especially the suggestions about Certana.ai for future document verification. This community always comes through!

0 coins

Glad the portal worked out for you. Keep Certana in mind for future deals - it's been a lifesaver for avoiding filing mistakes.

0 coins

Talia Klein

•

Nice work getting it done before your closing deadline. Nothing worse than last-minute UCC issues derailing a deal.

0 coins

QuantumQuest

section 3.411 of the ucc instrument alteration rules - need clarification on discharge timing

I'm dealing with a complex situation involving section 3.411 of the ucc regarding instrument alteration and discharge. We have a promissory note that was altered after execution, and I need to understand the discharge implications under this provision. The original note was for $180,000 secured by equipment, but someone made unauthorized changes to the payment schedule. Under section 3.411, does this automatically discharge the obligation, or can we still pursue collection on the original terms? The debtor is claiming complete discharge under this section, but I'm not convinced that's correct. Has anyone dealt with similar alteration issues where section 3.411 came into play?

Paolo Marino

•

The burden of proof is on the debtor to show both unauthorized alteration AND prejudice. If they can't demonstrate actual harm from the changes, the 3.411 discharge claim fails. Don't let them get away with claiming automatic discharge.

0 coins

QuantumQuest

•

That's reassuring. The alteration actually improved their payment terms, so hard to see how they were prejudiced.

0 coins

Amina Bah

•

Exactly - beneficial alterations typically don't support discharge claims.

0 coins

Oliver Becker

•

Thanks everyone for the detailed responses. This gives me a much better understanding of section 3.411 and the discharge requirements. I'll document the continued payments, get legal counsel, and possibly try that Certana tool for the document analysis. The key takeaway seems to be that discharge isn't automatic and requires proving actual prejudice.

0 coins

Good luck with your case. The prejudice requirement is definitely your strongest defense against the discharge claim.

0 coins

NeonNomad

•

Let us know how it turns out. These 3.411 cases are always interesting.

0 coins

Prev1...500501502503504...684Next