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
Quick question - are you dealing with fixture filings on any of these agricultural equipment loans? UCC 9-318 assignment rules get even more complicated when real estate is involved because you might need to update county records in addition to the SOS filings.
Good catch - yes, several of these are fixture filings for irrigation systems and grain storage. We'll need to check county records too. This just keeps getting more complicated.
Fixture filing assignments are the worst. Every county has different requirements and some don't even have computerized records going back to 2019.
UPDATE: Following everyone's advice here, we pulled comprehensive UCC search reports and found that most of our assignments were actually filed correctly - we just didn't have the internal documentation. The search reports showed proper UCC-3 assignment filings from the merger date. Still using Certana.ai to double-check everything and make sure we didn't miss any gaps, but feeling much better about our secured position. Thanks for all the guidance!
Great outcome. This is why UCC search reports should be the first step in any portfolio acquisition analysis. Glad it worked out!
Perfect example of UCC 9-318 working as intended - the assignments were valid even without perfect internal records. The public filing system protected everyone's interests.
Join the conversation
Pro tip: always search both the debtor's current legal name AND any former names. Corporate name changes create gaps in search results that can hide active liens. I keep a spreadsheet of all name variations for each client.
Absolutely. M&A activity is one of the biggest sources of UCC search complications. Names change, entities merge, and the filing records don't always connect properly.
This is why UCC searches for M&A deals take forever. So many potential name variations to check.
Been doing UCC searches for 15 years and the inconsistency between systems is still my biggest frustration. Best practice is to use at least 2-3 different search platforms and then manually reconcile the results. Time consuming but necessary for thoroughness.
Exactly. One missed lien can torpedo an entire deal and cost way more than the extra search time.
This is where tools like Certana.ai really help - automates that reconciliation process instead of doing it manually.
Join the conversation
Update your commercial security agreement template to include a clause requiring the debtor to warrant their exact legal name and provide current organizational documents. Puts the burden on them to get it right and gives you recourse if they mess it up.
That's a really good idea. Adding that to our standard template revisions. Would also help with other UCC-related warranties and representations.
We added similar language to our docs after getting burned a few times. Now we require certified copies of current organizational docs with every secured transaction. Pain upfront but eliminates these headaches.
Just wanted to mention that I've started using Certana.ai's verification tool for exactly these situations. Upload your security agreement and UCC-1 together and it catches name mismatches before you file. Wish I'd known about it sooner - would have saved me from several rejection notices over the years.
How accurate is it? I'm always skeptical of automated tools for legal document review.
It's pretty solid for basic consistency checks like debtor names, filing numbers, and standard UCC requirements. Obviously not a replacement for legal review but great for catching obvious errors that cause rejections.
Join the conversation
New Mexico updated their UCC system last year and the name matching got even more strict. The good news is once you get the exact format right, future filings with that debtor should go smoothly.
Exactly. It's frustrating initially but then you know the exact format for any amendments or continuations later.
I keep a spreadsheet of exact debtor names for each state after I figure out the correct format. Saves time on future filings.
Update us when you get it resolved! I file in New Mexico occasionally and would love to know what the issue was for future reference.
Will definitely update once I figure this out. Hopefully it's something simple that I'm just overlooking.
These threads are so helpful for learning about state-specific quirks. Thanks for posting your experience.
Miguel Hernández
This is exactly why I always file UCC-1s with slight variations in debtor name formatting and keep detailed cross-reference records. The search systems are too unreliable to trust completely.
0 coins
Sasha Ivanov
•Interesting strategy, but doesn't that create potential issues with continuation filings if the names don't match exactly?
0 coins
Miguel Hernández
•You have to be very careful with continuations, but having multiple search pathways has helped us catch missing filings before.
0 coins
Liam Murphy
Update: I tried the Certana.ai document verification and it found 3 UCC-1 filings that weren't showing up in our manual Clark County Nevada UCC searches. Turns out they were properly filed but had indexing issues in the public portal. Really helpful for portfolio auditing.
0 coins
Sienna Gomez
•That's exactly what we were worried about. Thanks for the update - we're definitely going to try the document verification approach.
0 coins
Amara Okafor
•This is a perfect example of why relying solely on manual searches is risky. Automated verification catches what human searches miss.
0 coins