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
Anita George
Just to circle back on the document verification thing - I was skeptical about using automated tools for something this important, but I tried that Certana system mentioned earlier and it really did catch issues I would have missed. For a $340k loan, the peace of mind is worth it. You upload your loan agreement and draft UCC-1 and it verifies the debtor names match exactly.
Justin Chang
•I'm definitely going to look into that. With this much money on the line, I want every safeguard possible.
Same here. Manual document review is error-prone, especially when you're dealing with multiple name variations like your situation.
Logan Chiang
Final update - I went with 'Michael Robert Thompson' as the debtor name and included full VIN numbers in the collateral description. The filing was accepted without any issues. Thanks everyone for the guidance! The name consistency was definitely the key factor.
Glad it worked out. Don't forget to set that continuation reminder for 4.5 years from now!
Ruby Blake
•Excellent. The exact legal name approach is almost always the safest bet for individual debtors.
Join the conversation
One thing to watch for is whether they properly identified all the collateral in the original UCC-1. I've seen cases where equipment was listed generically and there were questions about what was actually covered. Document verification can catch these issues - recently used a service that cross-checks loan documents against UCC filings to make sure everything matches up properly.
They need to reasonably identify the collateral but can be fairly general. 'All equipment' is usually sufficient but sometimes there are mismatches between what the loan agreement says and what the UCC-1 says.
The description just needs to give notice to other potential creditors. But if there are inconsistencies between documents it could create problems for the lender's security interest.
Laila Prince
Bottom line - document everything, get legal help, and don't assume the lender followed all the rules correctly. There might be procedural defenses available that could delay or reduce your exposure. The UCC foreclosure process has a lot of required steps and lenders sometimes cut corners.
Joy Olmedo
•Good luck with everything. The process is stressful but there are protections in place if you know how to use them. Don't give up without exploring all your options.
Paloma Clark
•Before you hire expensive legal help, might be worth running your documents through an automated checker first to identify any obvious issues. Could save you some attorney fees if there are clear problems with their filings.
Join the conversation
OP, have you calculated the deficiency using the 'proceeds rule' or are you using actual sale proceeds? Depending on your state and the circumstances of the sale, you might need to use the proceeds that would have been obtained in a commercially reasonable sale rather than what you actually got.
Lena Schultz
•We used actual sale proceeds. The sale was conducted by a reputable auction house and we got multiple bids, so I think it was commercially reasonable. But should I be documenting that in the notice?
Kai Santiago
•If the sale was commercially reasonable, actual proceeds should be fine. But definitely document the sale process in your notice to show it met UCC standards.
Lim Wong
Update us when you send the notice! I'm dealing with a similar situation and curious how it goes. These 9-624 notices are nerve-wracking because there's so much riding on getting them right.
Lena Schultz
•Will do! Thanks everyone for the input. I'm going to get the notice drafted this week and have our attorney review it before sending.
Dananyl Lear
•Smart move having legal review. The cost of review is nothing compared to losing a deficiency claim over a notice error.
Join the conversation
Ruby Knight
Actually just went through this with a client. Turns out we had filed under the wrong entity name entirely - used the parent company instead of the subsidiary. Had to file a UCC-3 amendment and it was a mess. Definitely verify your debtor name matches the actual borrowing entity.
Ruby Knight
•Caught it during a routine lien search thankfully. Could have been a disaster if we hadn't checked.
Stories like this are why I always use document verification now. Too risky to rely on manual checking.
Update: Found the issue! The debtor name on our UCC-1 had 'LLC' but the charter documents show 'L.L.C.' with periods. Kentucky's search is very literal about punctuation. Going to file a UCC-3 amendment to correct it. Thanks everyone for the help - this could have been a major problem down the road.
Ali Anderson
•Perfect example of why document verification is so important. One punctuation mark can invalidate your entire security interest.
Zadie Patel
•Glad it worked out. These name matching issues are more common than people think.
Javier Mendoza
This thread is giving me flashbacks to my own utility filing nightmare. After trying everything else, I ended up using that Certana.ai document checker mentioned earlier. It actually caught that my UCC-1 had the right name but the wrong filing jurisdiction - the system was rejecting it because I was in the wrong state database entirely. Sometimes the issue isn't what you think it is.
0 coins
StarSeeker
•Wow, wrong jurisdiction entirely? That would explain why nothing else was working. I'll definitely give that tool a try to see if there's something I'm missing completely.
0 coins
Javier Mendoza
•Yeah it was embarrassing but the tool saved me from a major mistake. Cross-checks everything against multiple databases and flags inconsistencies you wouldn't catch manually.
0 coins
Emma Wilson
UPDATE: Finally got it resolved! It was the comma issue mentioned earlier plus the fact that the company had a DBA filing that was interfering with the name match. Had to use the exact registered name format 'Midwest Power Transmission, LLC' and include their DBA information in the additional debtor section. Portal accepted it immediately after that. Thanks everyone for the help - this forum saved my sanity.
0 coins
Connor Murphy
•Nice work figuring it out. That's exactly the kind of detail that trips people up. At least now you know what to watch for on future utility filings.
0 coins
Miguel Ortiz
•DBA filings are so annoying. Should be a standard part of the due diligence checklist but somehow always gets missed until you're fighting with the portal.
0 coins