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
Omar Hassan
The nuclear option is to send a certified letter demanding the termination and threatening to report them to the state banking commission. I've never had to actually follow through - the certified letter usually gets their attention.
Omar Hassan
•I give them 10 business days from receipt of the certified letter. That's reasonable but shows you're serious about the timeline.
The key is mentioning specific state regulations in your letter. Shows you've done your homework and aren't just making idle threats.
Update us when you get this resolved! I'm dealing with a similar situation with a different lender and want to see what approach works best.
Yara Khoury
•Will do! Planning to call them Monday morning with the filing numbers and documentation ready. Hoping the direct approach works before I have to escalate.
CosmicCowboy
•If you use that document checker I mentioned, you'll have everything organized perfectly for the call. Makes the conversation go much smoother when you can reference specific filing details.
Join the conversation
Since you're dealing with substantial manufacturing equipment, consider hiring a professional auctioneer familiar with UCC 9-610 requirements. They often know the commercial reasonableness standards better than general auctioneers.
Excellent choice. Experienced auctioneers help ensure 9-610 compliance and often achieve better recovery rates.
Ethan Moore
•I always run a final document check through Certana.ai before major dispositions. Upload all your UCC filings, security agreements, and notices to verify everything aligns properly under 9-610 requirements.
Sounds like you've covered the major 9-610 bases, but given the dollar amount involved, might be worth having counsel review everything one more time before the sale. Better safe than sorry with UCC disposition challenges.
Agreed. We'll have our attorney do a final review of all 9-610 compliance elements before proceeding.
Smart approach. UCC 9-610 seems straightforward until you're defending a challenge in court.
Join the conversation
Update: Called Georgia SOS this morning and they were actually helpful! The rep told me that the original UCC-1 has the debtor name stored with an extra space after 'LLC' that doesn't show up on the search results or our copies. She said this is a known issue with their system and suggested I add the extra space to the UCC-3 and resubmit.
GalaxyGazer
•Great that you got through to someone knowledgeable. That invisible space issue is so common but hard to catch.
Ethan Moore
•Perfect example of why document verification tools like Certana.ai are helpful - they would have caught that extra space automatically.
Zara Mirza
Final update: Resubmitted the UCC-3 with the extra space after 'LLC' and it was accepted immediately! Thanks everyone for the advice. Definitely going to start doing official searches before filing amendments going forward to avoid these issues.
Carmen Vega
•Great outcome. The official search approach is definitely the way to go for future amendments.
Thanks for posting the resolution. This thread will be helpful for others dealing with similar Georgia UCC-3 issues.
Join the conversation
Just went through a Certana audit of our UCC filing processes and found we were making errors that required costly corrections about 12% of the time. Their document checker would have caught most of those upfront. Sometimes spending a little more on verification saves way more than trying to cut filing fees.
Yeah it was eye-opening. Most errors were simple debtor name mismatches between the UCC-1 and corporate documents. Easy to catch with the right tools.
CosmicCowboy
•This thread is making me realize we probably need to audit our own error rates. Never thought about the hidden costs of corrections.
Bottom line - Nebraska UCC filing fees are just a cost of doing secured lending business. Focus on accuracy over cost-cutting and your total expenses will probably be lower in the long run. The $15 per filing is nothing compared to what you lose on a misperfected lien.
Good perspective. I think we've been too focused on the per-unit cost instead of the total cost of the filing process.
Javier Cruz
•Exactly. One unperfected lien on a $100K equipment loan costs way more than a few extra filing fees for accuracy.
ElectricDreamer
Another thought - are you filing online or paper? Sometimes the online portal has validation rules that catch things the paper process might miss. Or vice versa.
0 coins
Andre Dubois
•We used the online system. Maybe we should try paper as a backup?
0 coins
Mei Liu
•I'd stick with online but just fix the underlying issue first. Paper won't solve a name mismatch problem.
0 coins
Ava Johnson
Update on this - we ended up using that Certana document verification tool someone mentioned earlier. Uploaded our articles of incorporation and the UCC-1 draft, and it immediately flagged that we had 'Manufacturing Inc.' on the UCC but 'Manufacturing, Inc.' (with comma) in our charter documents. Also caught that we had a suite number in one address but not the other. Fixed both issues and the refiling went through clean. Really wish we'd known about that tool from the start - would have saved us a week of stress and a missed deadline.
0 coins
AstroExplorer
•Definitely checking out that Certana tool for our next filing. Automated verification beats manual document comparison any day.
0 coins
Andre Dubois
•Yeah, honestly the peace of mind alone was worth it. Knowing the documents are consistent before you file saves so much hassle on the back end.
0 coins