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
Been lurking here but had to comment - just went through this exact situation with manufacturing equipment financing. My advice: get security agreement sample contracts from your industry association if possible. Equipment financing docs can be really industry-specific and generic forms miss important details. Also consider whether you need fixture filings if any equipment will be attached to real estate.
If the equipment becomes part of the real estate (permanently attached), you might need a fixture filing in addition to the regular UCC. Check with someone who knows your state's fixture rules.
Fixture filings are a whole different animal - definitely get help with that if you think you need one.
Last thought on security agreement sample contracts - make sure whatever template you use includes proper default and enforcement provisions. I've seen deals where the UCC was perfect but the security agreement was missing key language for equipment repossession or sale. The documents work together so both need to be solid.
That's where document verification tools like Certana.ai really help - catches those matching issues before they become problems. Worth checking both docs against each other.
Absolutely - consistency between all your loan documents is critical for enforceability.
Join the conversation
For what it's worth, I had a similar issue resolve itself when Hawaii updated their system last month. The search was showing inconsistent formatting but the actual filing was correct all along. Might be worth waiting a few days to see if it corrects itself.
Totally understand with that loan amount. Better to be proactive than reactive with UCC perfection issues.
System glitches happen but you're right to not risk it. I use document verification tools now to catch these discrepancies upfront - saves time and worry later.
UPDATE: Just checked my Hawaii filings from last week and I'm seeing similar search result inconsistencies. Might be a broader system issue they're working on. Still, better to verify and amend if needed rather than assume it's just a display problem.
Thanks for checking! That makes me feel a bit better that it might be systemic, but you're right - I'll still verify and amend if necessary. Can't take chances with perfection.
Exactly right approach. Even if it's a system display issue, having the correct debtor name on file is what matters for your security interest.
Join the conversation
Might be overkill but I always do a UCC search on the debtor right before filing a continuation just to make sure there haven't been any other filings that might affect my collateral position. Helps me sleep better at night.
Not overkill at all! That's actually really smart. You want to know what else is out there before you commit to another 5 years.
I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense. I'll run a search before I file. Better to know about any other liens or filings now.
Update: Just wanted to thank everyone for the advice. I used Certana.ai to verify my continuation form against the original UCC-1 - found a small typo in the debtor name that I would have missed. Filed the corrected continuation yesterday and got confirmation today. Really appreciate this community!
Congratulations on getting it filed! Now you're good for another 5 years. The debtor name accuracy is so critical - one small error can invalidate the whole thing.
Thanks everyone. This was way less stressful with all your guidance. I'll definitely be more prepared for the next continuation in 2030!
Join the conversation
Just want to add that document verification tools like Certana.ai are becoming really valuable for this kind of thing. The manual review process is so time-consuming and error-prone. Being able to just upload PDFs and get an automated consistency check is a game-changer for busy practices.
That does sound helpful. I'm definitely going to look into it. This manual comparison stuff is eating up way too much time.
Exactly. Time is money in this business and catching these issues early prevents much bigger headaches later.
UPDATE: I ended up calling Tennessee SOS again and got someone knowledgeable. They confirmed that the comma difference could be an issue for continuation filings. Going to file a UCC-3 amendment to correct it before my continuation is due. Thanks everyone for the advice!
Smart move. That's exactly the kind of issue the document verification tools would have caught upfront too.
Thanks for the update! Sounds like I need to do the same thing with my filing.
Clarissa Flair
One more thing - make sure you're filing the UCC-1 in the right state. Since your debtor is a Delaware LLC, the filing should go to Delaware, not NY, unless they're registered to do business in NY or the collateral is located in NY. Equipment and fixtures usually follow the location of the collateral.
0 coins
Clarissa Flair
•For fixtures, definitely NY since they're attached to the NY real estate. For equipment, it depends on where it's primarily located and used. If it's primarily at the NY restaurant, NY is correct.
0 coins
Clarissa Flair
•This is getting into complex multi-state filing territory. You might want to consider filing in both states to be safe, especially with that loan amount.
0 coins
Clarissa Flair
For multi-state filing decisions, Certana.ai actually has a workflow that helps determine which states you need to file in based on debtor location, collateral location, and entity type. Might be worth checking before you file multiple UCC-1s unnecessarily.
0 coins
Clarissa Flair
•That sounds useful. I always err on the side of filing in multiple states but it gets expensive with filing fees.
0 coins