13 PA. CONS. STAT. § 9402(a), (d) (1999):see also In re Robert B. Lee Enters., Inc., 980 F.2d 606, 608-09 (9th Cir. 19921: In re Camp Town. Inc., 197 B.R. 139, 142-43 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1996); Corporate Financers. Inc. v. Voyageur Trading Co., 519 N.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Minn.Ct.App. 1994). Regardless of subsequent amendments to the secured party of record, a financing statement continues to provide notice to creditors of a claimed security interest in the debtor's collateral from the date on which it is filed.

(c) the debtor has rights in the collateral. See, in general, James Talcott, Inc. v. Franklin Nat'l Bank of Mpls., 292 Minn. 277, 194 N.W.2d 775, 781-782 (1972); Corporate Financers, Inc. v. Voyageur Trading Co., 519 N.W.2d 238, 241-242 (Minn.App. 1994); FBS Business Fin. Corp. v. Edison Fin. Group, Inc., 464 N.W.2d 304, 306 (Minn.App. 1990). The statute, then, establishes two of the facial documentary requisites for a grant of a security agreement: signature by the debtor and a description of the collateral.

"The filing of the financing statement serves as notice to the world that a secured party of record may have a secured interest in the collateral described and invites further inquiry to disclose the complete state of affairs." Corporate Financers, Inc. v. Voyageur Trading Co., 519 N.W.2d 238, 242 (Minn.App. 1994) (citing Van Deist Supply Co. v. Adrian State Bank, 305 N.W.2d 342, 347 (Minn. 1981)). If a secured party fails to perfect an interest in goods, a buyer of the goods "takes free of [the] security interest . . . if the buyer gives value and receives delivery of the collateral without knowledge of the security interest . . . and before it is perfected."

Lorenz is presumed to have been aware of Bank's perfected security interest from the date the financing statement was filed in February 1998. See Corporate Financers, Inc. v. Voyageur Trading Co., 519 N.W.2d 238, 242 (Minn.App. 1994) ("[F]iling of the financing statement serves as notice to the world that a secured party of record may have a secured interest in the collateral described and invites further inquiry to disclose the complete state of affairs."), review denied (Minn. Sept. 16, 1994).

However, the pleadings do not set forth a definite monetary offer, but instead request "damages in excess of $50,000.00," as required by Minn.R.Civ.P. 8.01. Further, the purpose of pleadings is to notify the opposing party about the nature of the claims and to inform the court of the requested relief. See Corporate Financiers, Inc. v. Voyageur TradingCo., 519 N.W.2d 238, 241 (Minn.App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Sept. 16, 1994).

Indeed, it must be conceded that "Moskowita" sounds different from "Moskowitz;" however, they appear nearly identical.See also State v. Wilson, 135 N.C.App. 504, 521 S.E.2d 263 (1999) (name in criminal indictment sufficient under the doctrine of idem sonans where defendant not prejudiced by the misspelling); Reyes v. State 3 S.W.3d 623, 626 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 1999) (evidence is sufficient if the defendant was not surprised or prejudiced by the variance); Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482, 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991) (a variance in the spelling of a name is not fatal in cases where the inaccuracy is not misleading); Orr v. Byers, 198 Cal.App.3d 666, 244 Cal.Rptr. 13 (1988) (absolute accuracy in spelling names is where a variance must be such as has misled the opposite party to his prejudice.); Cox v. Cox, 490 So.2d 1051, 1052 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1986) (a minor misspelling is not a sufficient basis for invalidating notice unless prejudice is shown); Corporate Financers v. Voyageur Trading Co., 519 N.W.2d 238, 243 (Minn.Ct.App. 1994) (absent showing of prejudice from a misspelling, idem sonans prevails). This Court agreed with the trial court's disquisition on, and application of, the doctrine of idem sonans.