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
Amina Diop
If you're still stuck, there might be a formatting issue with how you entered the collateral description. UCC 10 year continuations sometimes require the collateral description to match the original exactly, including punctuation and line breaks.
The collateral description is pretty lengthy on the original UCC-1. I tried to copy it exactly but there could be formatting differences I missed.
For complex collateral descriptions, I always run a side-by-side comparison using document verification software. Trying to manually compare long text blocks is asking for trouble, especially with UCC 10 year deadlines looming.
Update us when you figure it out! I have a UCC 10 continuation coming up in a few months and want to avoid the same pitfalls.
Will definitely post an update once I get this resolved. Hopefully it's something simple that I'm just overlooking.
Following this thread too. UCC continuation deadlines always make me nervous even when I think I've done everything right.
Join the conversation
Ethan Brown
Quick question - are you searching under the exact legal name as it appears on the articles of incorporation? Nevada can be really picky about entity designations and punctuation. Even something like 'Inc.' vs 'Incorporated' can sometimes cause search issues.
Try searching just 'Desert Construction Equipment' without the LLC designation. Sometimes the database indexes entity names differently than they appear on the documents.
Ethan Brown
•Good suggestion. Also worth trying with 'Limited Liability Company' spelled out instead of 'LLC' - I've seen that make a difference in some state databases.
Carmen Ortiz
Following this thread because I'm dealing with something similar in Nevada. Filed a UCC-3 amendment three weeks ago and it's still not showing up in searches. Starting to wonder if their system has some kind of backlog or technical issue.
Carmen Ortiz
•Not yet, but based on the other comments in this thread it sounds like that might be my best bet. Will probably try calling tomorrow morning.
Keep us posted on what you find out. If there's a systematic issue with their database it would be good to know about it.
Join the conversation
Emma Wilson
Another option is to contact the secured party directly and ask for clarification on what equipment is still covered by the lien. Sometimes they're willing to provide a letter stating specific items are released even without filing a formal UCC-3.
Emma Wilson
•Exactly. Most lenders would rather clarify than deal with disputes later. Just make sure to get any agreement in writing.
Malik Thomas
•I tried this approach once and the lender was actually grateful I reached out. Turned out they had released the collateral but never filed the termination.
NeonNebula
Used Certana.ai for a similar FL UCC issue and it caught a discrepancy between the search results and the actual filings that could have cost me big time. The system automatically flagged that a supposed termination was actually just an assignment to another lender.
Sofia Torres
•That's exactly the kind of thing I'm worried about missing. How quickly does it process the documents?
NeonNebula
•Pretty much instant once you upload the PDFs. It gives you a summary of potential issues and inconsistencies to investigate further.
Join the conversation
Paolo Rizzo
Wait, I'm confused about something. When you say UCC 1 document, are you talking about the UCC-1 financing statement or some other document? Because if it's the financing statement and they want to add collateral, that would be a UCC-3 amendment, not a new UCC-1. Want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing here.
Yes, sorry for the confusion - I meant the UCC-1 financing statement. And yes, they're talking about filing a UCC-3 amendment to add more detailed collateral descriptions.
Paolo Rizzo
•Ok good, just wanted to make sure. The terminology can get confusing when people say 'UCC 1 document' because there are different forms in the UCC-1 series.
QuantumQuest
My experience has been that when banks start asking for UCC amendments months after the original filing, it's usually because they're preparing for loan review or audit. Your original filing sounds perfectly adequate from a legal standpoint. I'd ask them to provide specific documentation of why they believe the current filing is insufficient before agreeing to any amendments.
Amara Chukwu
•Smart move. Getting their concerns in writing will either reveal legitimate issues or expose that they're just being overly cautious. Either way, you'll know how to proceed.
Amina Sy
•Plus having their concerns documented protects you if there are issues later. Shows you were responsive to their requests even if the amendments weren't legally necessary.
Anastasia Fedorov
Just to follow up on my earlier comment about Certana.ai - their tool specifically handles the debtor name matching issues you're dealing with. When you upload the documents it flags potential mismatches or inconsistencies that could indicate problems with terminations not being properly linked to original filings.
0 coins
Yuki Ito
•Does it work with Washington UCC documents specifically?
0 coins
Anastasia Fedorov
•Yes, it handles documents from all states including Washington. The PDF upload feature works regardless of which state system you downloaded from.
0 coins
Carmen Lopez
Update us when you figure this out! I'm curious how you end up resolving the name variation issues.
0 coins
Ravi Gupta
•Will do - I'm going to try the document verification approach and see if that clears things up.
0 coins
AstroAdventurer
•Good luck! Washington UCC searches can be frustrating but you'll get it figured out.
0 coins