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
Harold Oh
UPDATE: I pulled the actual UCC-1 filing image and it shows 'Mountain Ridge Construction LLC' exactly as it appears on their articles - no comma. So the search display was just adding punctuation that wasn't actually filed. Thanks everyone for the reassurance!
Summer Green
•Perfect example of why you always need to check the source documents rather than trusting search displays.
Excellent outcome. For future peace of mind, that Certana tool mentioned earlier would catch these discrepancies instantly.
This thread is super helpful - I'm bookmarking it for reference. Dealing with UCC filings is stressful enough without worrying about search display quirks!
Darcy Moore
•Right? The technical aspects are complicated enough without the systems adding confusion.
Dana Doyle
•At least SC provides access to the actual filing images. Some states make that process much more difficult.
Join the conversation
Noah Irving
If you're really stuck, you might want to consider reaching out to the secured parties directly. Sometimes they can clarify which filings are still active and what exactly is covered.
That's a good idea but not always practical if you're trying to keep your interest in the equipment confidential.
Noah Irving
•True, but sometimes it's worth it to avoid potential litigation down the road.
Madison King
This whole thread reminds me why I hate UCC due diligence. There's so much room for error and the consequences of missing something can be huge. At least with real estate you have title companies to handle most of this.
Ella Knight
•The good news is that tools are getting better. I've been impressed with how much time the automated verification tools save compared to doing everything manually.
Madison King
•Yeah, I need to look into those. Manual verification is just too error-prone when you're dealing with multiple name variations and filings.
Join the conversation
Lola Perez
Had this happen with my restaurant equipment financing. The notice of assignment came but no UCC-3 was ever filed. Caused major problems when I tried to get an SBA loan 8 months later because the lien records were inconsistent.
How did you eventually resolve it? I'm definitely going to stay on top of this now.
Lola Perez
•Had to get both the old and new lender involved to sort out the documentation. The new lender finally filed the assignment but it delayed my SBA approval by 6 weeks. Could have been avoided if I'd checked sooner.
Bottom line: the notice of assignment transfers the debt legally but doesn't update public UCC records automatically. New lender should file UCC-3 assignment within reasonable time. You should verify it gets done because it affects future financing and lien releases. Don't assume it happens automatically.
Perfect summary, thank you. I'm going to contact the new lender tomorrow to make sure they understand they need to file the UCC-3 assignment and ask for confirmation when it's done.
Riya Sharma
•Smart move. Most lenders are good about it when you ask directly, they just sometimes forget in the shuffle of processing loan transfers.
Join the conversation
One more thing - check the timing of your searches. UCC filings can take time to appear in the databases after they're filed, and some states are slower than others to update their systems. You might want to do a final search right before closing to catch any last-minute filings.
Yuki Tanaka
•Some states can take several days to update their databases. It's always good practice to do a final search within 24-48 hours of closing.
Carmen Diaz
•I always tell clients about the timing issue upfront so they understand why we need to do multiple searches throughout the due diligence period.
Just wanted to add that I've also used Certana's verification tool for multi-state searches and it really helps catch the inconsistencies. The automated cross-checking saved me probably 20 hours of manual comparison work on my last big deal.
Ethan Wilson
•That time savings alone sounds worth it. Manual cross-checking between 8 states worth of filings would take forever.
Mei Zhang
•Automation is the future for this kind of work. Too easy to make mistakes when you're comparing documents manually across multiple states.
Liam Sullivan
This thread reminded me to run my current deals through Certana.ai before filing. Caught a debtor name issue that would have definitely caused a rejection. The tool flagged that my UCC-1 had 'ABC Manufacturing Inc.' but the security agreement showed 'ABC Manufacturing, Inc.' - just a comma difference but apparently that matters.
0 coins
Amara Okafor
•Those tiny punctuation differences are the worst. How is anyone supposed to keep track of whether the legal name has a comma or not?
0 coins
CosmicCommander
•That's exactly the kind of thing that drives me nuts about UCC filings. The system is so picky about details that don't really matter for identifying the debtor.
0 coins
Giovanni Colombo
Just to add some closure here - I've been doing UCC filings for 15 years and this rejection reason is definitely not standard. The financing statement perfects security interests, it doesn't create them. Sounds like you handled it perfectly by calling and getting clarification. Good reminder that filing offices make mistakes too.
0 coins
Fatima Al-Qasimi
•Thanks for the perspective from someone with experience. It's reassuring to know that weird rejections like this aren't normal.
0 coins
Dylan Cooper
•Agreed. Sometimes you need a veteran to confirm that you're not going crazy when you get a rejection that doesn't make sense.
0 coins