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 :)

Amina Toure

UCC filing search Wisconsin - need help tracking down missing continuation

Been dealing with a nightmare situation for the past month. We have a client whose UCC-1 was filed back in 2020 and the continuation should have been filed by now but we can't locate it anywhere in the Wisconsin system. The original filing shows up fine when I do a UCC filing search Wisconsin portal, but there's no continuation record attached to it. Client is freaking out because their lender is asking for proof of perfection status and we can't provide clear documentation. Has anyone else run into issues where the Wisconsin SOS system doesn't properly link continuation filings to the original UCC-1? I've tried searching by debtor name, filing number, and even the secured party info but nothing shows up for any continuation activity. The original UCC-1 filing number is valid and shows active status, but I'm worried we're missing something critical here. Any advice on alternative search methods or common reasons why continuations might not appear linked to the original filing in Wisconsin?

Wisconsin allows you to request certified copies of filings directly from the Secretary of State office. If you have the original filing number, they can pull up everything associated with it including continuations that might not show up in the online search. Takes a few days but it's definitive.

0 coins

Yeah they have a records request form on their website. You'll need the filing number and there's usually a small fee but it's worth it for peace of mind.

0 coins

Just make sure to request all amendments and continuations related to the original filing number, not just the UCC-1 itself.

0 coins

Final thought - if you do find the continuation but it was filed late, don't panic. Wisconsin has some grace period provisions that might still protect the security interest depending on the circumstances. But obviously better to find it sooner rather than later.

0 coins

Good luck! Let us know what you find. These Wisconsin search issues seem to be getting more common.

0 coins

Definitely try the Certana.ai document checker if the manual searches don't pan out. It's designed exactly for situations like this where you need to verify document consistency across multiple filings.

0 coins

Amun-Ra Azra

UCC 1 Washington State filing keeps getting rejected - debtor name issue?

Been trying to file a UCC-1 in Washington state for 3 weeks now and keep getting rejections from the Secretary of State office. The collateral is commercial kitchen equipment for a restaurant loan, and I've triple-checked the debtor information against the articles of incorporation. The business name on the charter shows 'Pacific Northwest Culinary LLC' but I'm wondering if there's some naming convention I'm missing? The rejection notices just say 'debtor name does not match records' but don't specify what records they're comparing against. This is holding up a $180K equipment financing deal and the lender is getting impatient. Has anyone dealt with Washington state UCC-1 filings recently? Are they particularly strict about exact name matching?

Try running the debtor name through Certana.ai's document checker before your next filing attempt. It'll compare your UCC-1 against the corporate documents and highlight any discrepancies. Much faster than playing guessing games with the state.

0 coins

Smart move. The automated verification catches things human eyes miss, especially with complex entity names.

0 coins

Used it for a multi-entity filing and it flagged 3 different name format issues across the entities. Saved tons of time.

0 coins

Update us when you figure it out! I'm filing a UCC-1 in Washington next week and want to avoid the same headache.

0 coins

Will do! Going to try the certificate of good standing approach first, then use the document verification service as backup.

0 coins

Perfect. Looking forward to hearing what worked.

0 coins

Justin Evans

Need help with UCC Article 9 security agreement form - debtor name requirements

I'm working on a UCC Article 9 security agreement form for our equipment financing deal and running into some confusion about the debtor name requirements. The borrower is an LLC that recently changed its registered name with the state, but they're still operating under their old DBA for day-to-day business. When I prepare the security agreement, should I use the exact registered LLC name from the Secretary of State records, or can I include the DBA name they're actually known by? I've heard conflicting advice about whether the UCC-1 filing needs to match the security agreement exactly, and I don't want to create a situation where our lien gets challenged later. The loan amount is substantial ($180,000 for manufacturing equipment) so getting this right is critical. Has anyone dealt with similar name discrepancies between the security agreement and UCC filing? What's the best practice for ensuring both documents are legally sound?

This thread is super helpful! I'm dealing with something similar but with a corporation that merged with another entity. The surviving corporation kept its original name but I need to make sure I'm not missing any predecessor entities in my collateral research. Anyone dealt with merger situations in UCC filings?

0 coins

I had a merger situation last year. Ended up needing to file additional UCC-1s to cover assets that transferred from the non-surviving entity.

0 coins

Thanks, I'll definitely need to dig deeper into the merger docs then.

0 coins

After reading all this, I'm definitely going to be more careful with name verification. We had one rejected filing last month that cost us extra fees to refile, and now I realize it was probably a name mismatch issue. The additional verification steps everyone mentioned seem worth the extra time to avoid rejections and potential perfection problems down the road.

0 coins

The rejection fees really add up if you're doing volume filings. Prevention is definitely cheaper than correction.

0 coins

Plus the time factor - rejections can delay closing if you're working on a tight timeline.

0 coins

Oliver Alexander

UCC Contract Performance Foundation - Filing Compliance Check Issue

Having major confusion about UCC contract performance requirements and how they tie to our filing obligations. We've got a commercial lending portfolio where the foundation for determining whether any contract subject to the UCC has been performed is getting questioned by our compliance team. The issue started when we had three UCC-1 filings get rejected last month because the debtor names didn't match exactly with the underlying security agreements. Now our legal department is asking whether we properly established the foundation for determining contract performance before we even filed the UCCs. The loans are all secured by equipment and inventory, total exposure around $2.3M across the three deals. Our SBA lender is breathing down our necks because two of these are SBA guaranteed loans and they want proof that we followed proper UCC procedures. Problem is, I'm not even sure what constitutes the proper foundation for performance determination under Article 9. Are we supposed to document specific performance benchmarks in the security agreement itself? Does this foundation need to be reflected in our UCC filings somehow? The rejected filings are sitting in limbo and we need to get this sorted before the 20-day resubmission window expires. Anyone dealt with similar performance foundation issues that impacted their UCC strategy?

This thread has been educational. I'm realizing that the foundation for determining whether any contract subject to the UCC has been performed isn't some complex legal requirement - it's just making sure your contracts clearly define performance obligations and your UCC filings accurately support those contracts. The original poster's rejected filings probably just highlighted some documentation inconsistencies that need to be cleaned up.

0 coins

That's the conclusion I'm reaching too. Fix the immediate filing problems, then use this as motivation to improve our overall documentation consistency. Thanks everyone for the insights.

0 coins

Good plan. And don't let your legal department overcomplicate this. The foundation for UCC performance is just solid contract fundamentals.

0 coins

One last thought on this - the foundation for determining whether any contract subject to the UCC has been performed really comes down to documentation discipline. Your security agreements need clear performance terms, your UCC filings need accurate debtor/collateral info, and everything needs to be consistent. When filings get rejected, it's usually a sign that this documentation discipline needs improvement. Consider implementing some kind of systematic review process to catch these issues before they cause problems.

0 coins

That's exactly why we started using automated document verification. Catches the inconsistencies before they become rejected filings. Really improved our documentation discipline.

0 coins

Automation makes sense for this kind of repetitive checking. Human review misses too many details when you're dealing with multiple loan files.

0 coins

Luca Bianchi

Need help with mass UCC lookup - portfolio audit nightmare

Our bank just acquired another institution and inherited about 800 UCC filings that need verification. Half the documentation is missing and we're trying to figure out which liens are still active, which have lapsed, and what needs immediate continuation. The previous bank's record keeping was terrible - some files just have debtor names with no filing numbers, others have partial UCC-1 forms with illegible handwriting. State portals are timing out when I try to search more than 10-15 at a time. Anyone dealt with this kind of mass UCC lookup situation before? I'm drowning in manual searches and my compliance deadline is next month.

Just want to second the Certana.ai recommendation. I was initially skeptical too but it really does streamline the verification process. The Charter→UCC-1 check workflow caught several name mismatches between our corporate filings and UCC documents that could have caused problems later. For a portfolio audit like this, the time savings alone would be worth it.

0 coins

I still think manual verification is safer for critical filings, but I admit the volume you're dealing with might make that impractical.

0 coins

The tool doesn't replace good judgment, but it does flag potential issues you might miss in manual review. Especially helpful for catching subtle debtor name variations.

0 coins

One more thought - document everything you're doing for this audit. Your examiners will want to see your process and how you prioritized the review. Having a clear methodology will help if you can't get through all 800 before your deadline.

0 coins

Yeah, examiners love to see risk-based prioritization and systematic approaches, even if you can't complete everything.

0 coins

Also keep screenshots of any portal errors or system issues. Sometimes that helps explain delays in compliance reviews.

0 coins

Prev1...524525526527528...684Next