it “substantially complied” with this requirement. In Circus Time, this Court held that minor errors, not seriously misleading, in certificates of title were not sufficient to render a security interest in those vehicles unperfected; “substantial compliance” with the documentary requirements was sufficient. See id. at 43; see also N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 382-A:9-402(8) (1994) (providing that a “financing statement substantially complying” with requirements is effective). This case, however, is easily distinguishable. Circus Time involved errors in the financing documents (i.e., the certificates of title), as opposed to errors in the filing process. The doctrine of substantial compliance has not been extended to filing requirements. See In re Covey, 66 B.R. 459, 460 (Bankr.D.N.H.1986) (<HOLDING>); In re Sports Enters., Inc., 38 B.R. 282,
holding that security interest was unperfected where creditor in addition to filing with the secretary of state mistakenly filed with the clerk of the town adjacent to where debtor conducted business holding that security interest was not perfected since debtor conducted business only in one town in the state and creditor did not file financing statement in that town holding that the intent to create a security interest in afteracquired property must be ascertained and judged by the language of the security agreement not the financing statement holding security interest in insurance premiums perfected by creation of security interest holding that although a financing statement may be used to assist in the interpretation of the security agreement the financing statement does not create a security interest and cannot extend a security interest beyond what has been unambiguously described in a security agreement