Posted by celeste pafford on 7/19/06 12:34pm
Msg #134044

Need opinions please....

Last night had first signing with the borrowers name completely wrong. Loan docs said Cathleen B. Borrower- Borrower, and all her id had was Cathy B. Borrower. We had to cease signing because she had nothing in I.D. to verify loan docs. Got a call this morning from loan officer saying never had an issue like this, that in the aka statement, it has her as the same person as both people I just mentioned. I replied to her, that this aka does not cover what I have to notarize, because she has no proper I.D. for me to notarize with. As a matter of fact, the aka statement has me notarize her name that she has no proper I.D. with, so how can I notarize.
Has anyone dealt with loan officers who say this is okay, it catches me off guard, and I feel I have done it incorrectly. This was the first time I have had no proper I.D.

Reply by PL on 7/19/06 12:54pm
Msg #134053

Cathleen/Cathy, Philip/Phil, Donald/Don, Robert/Bob, all derivatives. I believe that you may have read into that just a bit much. So if you had a borrower with docs as Bob B. Borrower and his ID said Robert B. Borrower would you turn him back?

Reply by celeste pafford on 7/19/06 12:58pm
Msg #134055

It was also missing on her I.D. one of her last names. She had two last names on her loan docs, but only one last name on her drivers license.

Reply by Kate/CA on 7/19/06 2:06pm
Msg #134087

I would turn them back, the ID must match or have more. Even if it is a derivative that does not mean a match. If I have a borrower that has Rob and his ID says Robert, I will take it, but if the documents say Bob I wil not. We are going by CA state law, others are less strict.

Reply by Cassandra Andrews on 7/19/06 6:14pm
Msg #134154

yes i would PL because . . .

i have a friend whose name is vickie and it is NOT short for (or a derivative of, in her case) victoria. for her victoria would not be her name.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 12:58pm
Msg #134056

Celeste either the LO is completely ignorant of notarial law since they are not a notary. Or they just want the loan to close and will try and say anything to get you to do it. They want their commision for the loan. They are in no jeopardy because they would not be the ones breaking the law. I would say it is the later because of the never had an issue before statement. Baloney.

You did good Celeste. Do not let them intimidate you. You know your laws and you follow them. That is what matters.

Reply by celeste/ca on 7/19/06 1:06pm
Msg #134057

Also, anther notary was supposed to go out a couple of days before me, but found out the lady didn't have I.D. to match so it was cancelled. The loan officer already knew of the problem, and still tried to get someone else to complete it. I just want to make sure, the AKA does not cover notarial acts.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 1:16pm
Msg #134062

Well Celeste you already know the answer, maybe you just needed some back up to your thinking. What a slimey lo. So he tells you at the signing he's never had an issue then later you find out he knew. What scum. Yes it does suck that you had to deal with this. But the poor borrower, she's now had two notaries come out and tell her it's a no go. I hope she listens to you and the last notary and deals with it properly.

Reply by Brenda/CA on 7/19/06 1:20pm
Msg #134066

Good for you Celeste. The LO will tell you its not a problem because they just want to get the loan signed. I go by the rule that the ID can have more then the loan documents but not less. I had a signing where the loan docs had last name-last name, id contained only one last name, so I could not identify her with the hyphenated last name (she said DMV could only fit one name on the driver's license). However, you can only identify her by the name that is on the id which she provided.

Reply by MaggieMae_CA on 7/19/06 1:13pm
Msg #134061

Ever hear of Credible Witnesses?

I've run into ID problems on occasion and have cleared it up by using Credible Witnesses. I'm surprised the individuals responding to your post did not mention this.

I have had lenders tell me that the a/k/a affidavit clears up name issues. I've had a loan processor tell me to use a library card to ID the borrower when the borrower could not find his license or passport. Did I leave? No, I told the borrower to round up a couple of neighbors who would take an oath that they knew Joe D. Borrower to be Joseph Borrower and that he was one and the same person.

Credible Witnesses were ID'ed and signed my journal. I was a happy notary, lender was happy the loan was signed, borrower was happy he was able to refi and all was well with the world and the Secretary of State of CA.

Reply by celeste pafford on 7/19/06 1:17pm
Msg #134063

Re: Ever hear of Credible Witnesses?

Yes, I have heard of credible witnesses, but as I have read on this board, they should be used in difficult situations. This isn't a difficult situation. Loan officer was informed by another notary name was incorrect on docs. They chose not to redo them.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 1:19pm
Msg #134065

I disagree with CW's

In order to use a CW it has to be difficult or impossible for the signor to obtain ID. Maybe for that night it would be. But it really is only an inconvenience that she would have to go to the dmv and get proper id or god forbid the lo redraws the docs.

Reply by Becca_FL on 7/19/06 1:30pm
Msg #134068

Re: I disagree with CW's

>>>In order to use a CW it has to be difficult or impossible for the signor to obtain ID.<<<

Now come on SB, I know you've been to the DMV in California, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to deal with the DMV. After three attemps trying to obtain a CADL, I gave up and moved back to Florida.

Reply by MaggieMae_CA on 7/19/06 1:39pm
Msg #134071

Difficult...

When the lock is expiring the day of the signing and the signing is taking place at 5:30 p.m. and the borrower has misplaced his wallet and is in a panic and the loan needs to sign that night, credible witnesses are essential to get the loan signed in time.

In the original posting, the borrower was told by the first notary that she could not be ID. The borrower should have told her loan officer that the docs needed to be drawn correctly in her legal name to rectify the situation; but the reality of life is that most people do not have the knowledge and/or are not savvy enough to make sure things are done correctly by their lender. Most have been lead through the process by a LO who has said "Oh, it's not a problem..." and just go with that.

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/19/06 2:02pm
Msg #134082

Re: Difficult...

"When the lock is expiring the day of the signing and the signing is taking place at 5:30 p.m. and the borrower has misplaced his wallet and is in a panic and the loan needs to sign that night, credible witnesses are essential to get the loan signed in time."

Notary law has nothing to do with getting loans signed on time. The scenario you just described doesn't come close to showing that proper ID is very difficult or impossible to obtain. A misplaced wallet so it's ok to break out the credible witnesses? Give me a freaking break.

You need to learn your notary law better.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 1:39pm
Msg #134072

Re: I disagree with CW's

Becs the last time I went to the CA dmv I made an appointment and was in and out in 30 minutes.

Reply by Brenda/CA on 7/19/06 1:36pm
Msg #134069

Re: I disagree with CW's

I agree with SarahBeth, I would and have used credible witnessess for identification purposes depending upon the circumstances. However, a person that has "kathleen" and "last name-last name" on loan douments and "Kathy" and a single last name on the id provided is an entirely different situation. This person has a current id but does not have her legal names on it?? Was it difficult or impossible for her to obtain proper id?

Reply by celeste/ca on 7/19/06 1:46pm
Msg #134075

Re: I disagree with CW's

1st off, loan officer was informed by 1st notary that she would not complete signing because no proper I.D. Loan officer already knew of situation. She no longer goes by her 1st last name because she is divorced, so how can she be identified by that name. All she is known by now is Kathy B. Borrower, not Kathleen B Borrower-Borrower which was on all loan docs.

Reply by PL on 7/19/06 1:43pm
Msg #134073

Read your state handbook, it tells you what to do

"In order to use a CW it has to be difficult or impossible for the signor to obtain ID"

That's not what pages 7,8 & 9 of the California notary handbook says about using Creditible witnesses. I am not in California, but in this case the state has made it pretty clear what one can use for identification purposes

Reply by Marlene/USNA on 7/19/06 1:56pm
Msg #134078

Re: Read your state handbook, it tells A LITTLE...

...of what to do. Refer to the law as cited for the whole story.

Civil Code sections 1185(c)(2) and 1185(c)(1)(A)-(E)

Reply by Kate/CA on 7/19/06 2:01pm
Msg #134081

CW's

On the test that the SOS gives to become a notary, one of the questions was, Mrs Jones lost her purse last week and what can she use for ID? ( A) Credible Witnesses, (b) Library Card
(C) credit card, etc. Interesting! It depends on ones own interpretation of difficult or impossible.

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/19/06 2:08pm
Msg #134088

Re: Ever hear of Credible Witnesses?

"I've run into ID problems on occasion and have cleared it up by using Credible Witnesses. I'm surprised the individuals responding to your post did not mention this."

We didn't mention it because it's not legal. The credible witness requirement CLEARLY states "the signer does not possess any of the identification documents authorized by law to establish the signer's identity" Which OBVIOUSLY means that you can't use a credible witness just to notarize "Kathy" instead of "Katherine" because the ID and docs don't match.

You really need to learn your notary law better.

Reply by PL on 7/19/06 2:12pm
Msg #134094

You may want to read the handbook just a little closer

I don't see where it state what you state.

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/19/06 2:22pm
Msg #134099

Re: You may want to read the handbook just a little closer

I wrote a direct quote out of the handbook and you're telling me I need to read it closer because you don't see it in there? Too funny.

Page 8, 3/4 of the way down the page.

Reply by PL on 7/19/06 2:25pm
Msg #134100

Re: You may want to read the handbook just a little closer

The part about "TWO" witnesses is what I am refering to. I assumed that she did not know the one creditble witness so in this case it would take two. Really it's not funny, because this borrower still has no loan after 2 notaries went to see her.

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/19/06 2:29pm
Msg #134101

Re: You may want to read the handbook just a little closer

OK, I have no idea what you're talking about. If the borrower has a valid ID then that's it. You can't use credible witnesses for any reason so it shouldn't even be an issue in this situation.

There is no difference in the requirements of use of a single credible witness or 2 credible witnesses. The only difference is that if the notary personally knows the credible witness, then there doesn't need to be a second one.

Reply by PL on 7/19/06 2:36pm
Msg #134108

Re: You may want to read the handbook just a little closer

If you'll notice there are 3 sections (A )for those with ID, (B) for those with one credible witness with restrictions and (C) when you use 2 witnesses and if you'll notice those restrictions are not in C. So it looks to me that the state has laid out plans to cover any situation that may come out in the field.

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/19/06 2:41pm
Msg #134111

Sigh

Top of page 9

"Under oath, the credible witnesses must then swear or affirm under penalty of perjury to each of the things sworn to or affirmed by a single credible witness, as set forth above"

Now will you please stop trying to prove me wrong about this?

Reply by Mike Photon on 7/19/06 4:33pm
Msg #134140

Re: Sigh

PL, get a grip.
From the handbook its pretty(kinda) clear about using credible witness(es):

"3. The credible witness reasonably believes that the circumstances of the signer are such
that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of identification

4. The signer does not possess any of the identification documents authorized by law to
establish the signer’s identity"

Since point 4 mentioned here is not satisfied(the borrower has a valid ID), the difficulty in obtaining an ID is irrelevant.

Reply by celeste pafford on 7/19/06 2:31pm
Msg #134103

Re: You may want to read the handbook just a little closer

I did not use any credible witnesses for this signing. Yes, you are right though, this lady does not have her docs signed because the Loan Officer didn't want to fix the problem the first time.

Reply by Tina_MA on 7/19/06 7:27pm
Msg #134162

Re: You may want to read the handbook just a little closer

>>>Really it's not funny, because this borrower still has no loan after 2 notaries went to see her.<<<

Your job as a Notary is NOT to make it easier for borrowers to get a loan. Your job is to make certain that the borrower is who they say they are, by following the law.

If the borrower does not have an ID that matches, or has more than, what's listed on the docs, you don't do that signing.

Reply by celeste/ca on 7/19/06 2:14pm
Msg #134096

Cali...

Since people are on this credible witness kick, (too easy in my opinion) I respect your opinion on this matter, so would you have ceased signing in this situation. Especially, if the loan officer already ran into this problem with the first notary, and borrower doesn't even do by 1st last name since she is divorced?

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/19/06 2:37pm
Msg #134109

Re: Cali...

You did the right thing. Too often people forget that our duties as notaries have nothing to do with our duties as signing agents. Just look at Maggie Mae's posts in this thread, her main goal seems to be getting the loan signing completed instead of following notary law.

While I personally can't see the big deal about allowing an obvious name derivitave like Kathy vs. Katherine, there's nothing I can see in the handbook that allows us the flexibility to do this.

It's just another case of the LO trying to pass the buck. If they ran into this problem before and they STILL sent out docs with the incorrect name, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Don't even give it a second thought.

Reply by DogmongerCA on 7/19/06 3:21pm
Msg #134124

I am not an attorney nor do pretend to be one on the

internet, so the enclosed is solely my personal opinion. But given that the above scenario. You cannot make a legal id because the principal has presnented you with a ID that does not match your notorial certificates Therefore the use of credible witnesses to make that ID which the notary knows to be in direct conflict with the principals ID, a false statement. You might want to question the SOS on Government Code 8214,1(1). Which states



VIOLATION OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
8214.1(1)

Execution of any Certificate as a Notary Public Containing A Statement
Known to the Notary Public to be False

Execution of a certificate that the notary public knew contained a false statement, is a
serious breech of honesty, credibility, truthfulness, and integrity, which are paramount to the
office of a notary public. These characteristics are fundamental to the duties and responsibilities
of a notary public and are depended upon by government, business, and the public.

ALL VIOLATIONS:
ALL VIOLATIONS: Revocation of the commission and a maximum civil penalty of one
thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500).
The notary public backdates an acknowledgment.
Example 1: The notary public backdates an acknowledgements
Example 2:
The notary public executes an acknowledgment for a person who did not
personally appear.
Example 3:
The notary public accepts a social security card as identification for an
acknowledgment.
Secretary of State
Disciplinary Guidelines 2001
Effective 03/31/01


**** In Duane Gomers 6 hour continuting education class materials.

" Doing a notary certificated with false statements known to you is now considered forgery, which is a felony."

Reply by ewing2surf on 7/19/06 2:02pm
Msg #134083

READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

There is a feature article on page 5 written by Charles N. Faerber (Editor at Large) concerning this topic. He refers to the "less but not more rule" as an informal standard. Neither a Statutory or an ethical rule.

Was it wise to adjourn the signing on an informal technical issue? NNA says no.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 2:11pm
Msg #134092

Re: READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

Yet the NNA is not the author or authority on CA notarial law, nor are they the judge in a court room. If I screw up and get called on it and say "but I was told by the NNA" wont save my bacon.

Reply by ewing2surf on 7/19/06 2:18pm
Msg #134097

Re: READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

Actually the less but not more rule came from the NNA.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 2:31pm
Msg #134104

Re: READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

So just for the sake of debate. Going with the less but not more rule why on earth would you not adjourn the signing when the docs contain alot more than what the id contains.

It is neither an informal or technical issue that the borrower did not have proper id.

Reply by ewing2surf on 7/19/06 2:36pm
Msg #134107

Re: READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

Just for debate of course. You ARE in the signers home.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 2:44pm
Msg #134113

Re: READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

So what if I'm in the signors home. It doesn't matter whether I'm doing a signing for a multimillion dollar property or for a basic notarization for a toothless hillbilly. If the id is improper it is improper.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 7/19/06 2:54pm
Msg #134114

I say the responsibility is o the L/O!

If the brw will not or cannot update her ID, then the L/O is responsible for the paperwork
being drawn up in the brw's legal name.
It is NOT the NSA's responsiblity to figure this out for them!
They absolutely know, and sounds like they are trying to bully you into accepting it
for whatever reason.
Abide by your states laws first, then accommodate the lender's and brw's wishes
within the law.
Or be prepared to suffer the consequences, if there are any.
I guarantee the onus will be on the notary if there is something illegal going on, and
they get caught.

Reply by ewing2surf on 7/19/06 2:58pm
Msg #134116

Re: READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

For debate only. And the Government, Business or California Code that states that it is improper is? Or is that stated only on page 15 section 5 titled "Check for Signatures" in the steps to proper notarization section of the California notary law primer published by the NNA.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 3:06pm
Msg #134118

let me rephrase

Instead of saying improper id let me say, unverifiable name on document to be notarized.

Reply by ewing2surf on 7/19/06 3:31pm
Msg #134127

Re: let me rephrase

I'm on your side, but for Debate.

Is this a not a Notarial issue as in unverifiable ID but the unverifiable spelling of the name on the document to be notarized. Are there compelling reasons to believe that the signer is in fact the correct person to sign the Document?

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 7/19/06 5:12pm
Msg #134146

Re: let me rephrase

No Joe there aren't compelling reasons to believe that the signor is in fact the correct person named in the document. I don't know them, I am relying on the id they present. I am there to verify idenity and I can't.

But Joe we aren't talking about Joseph on the docs and Joe on the id which by the way is more on the doc and less on the id so it's a no go because I have never met said signor before and his mom may have named him Joe not Joseph. Thus a possible case of fraud. What we are talking about is docs that have two last names on them and the id only having one last name. Since I have never met this person before I cannot with complete confidence say that this is the same person.

Reply by Brenda/CA on 7/19/06 4:16pm
Msg #134136

Re: READ NNA California notary Bulletin August 2006 issue

I would not go with what the NNA says. And, yes i would adjourn the signing under this circumstance.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 7/20/06 1:15am
Msg #134204

Wow, I have never seen so many posts on such a simple issue.

According to the CA handbook, you did the correct thing.

And if that isn't enough, then read the Patriots Act Disclosure which in part reads " We require 2 forms of ID for each borrowor to comply with section 326 of the act" which rules out credible witnesses for documents connected with loans.

Then if you go to the Homeland Security website, you also find that the ID requirements are the same as California. That means the ID can have more but not less than what is on the loan docs. Using the short name on the ID when compared to the loan docs means that dog won't hunt.

I did the same thing some time ago and was threatened with a lawsuit for the borrowor losing their rate lock. The result, they consulted with their attorneys and decided to re-draw the loan papers properly and I finished the loan a few days later ....

Reply by CaliNotary on 7/20/06 1:22am
Msg #134209

Ain't it amazing?

It really is simple, and yet we still have plenty of seasoned notaries on this board who think there's absolutely nothing wrong with using credible witnesses any old time you want. It just blows my mind.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 7/20/06 1:29am
Msg #134211

Re: Ain't it amazing? Yes it is, and anyone who uses the NNA

as a final word on what is proper is putting their tail on the line. As far as California law, they are wrong more than they are right.

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/20/06 9:26am
Msg #134237

Agree but

Glenn wrote "And if that isn't enough, then read the Patriots Act Disclosure which in part reads " We require 2 forms of ID for each borrower to comply with section 326 of the act" which rules out credible witnesses for documents connected with loans. "

The use of Credible witnesses may not be automatically ruled out.
Here is my reasoning. The 2nd form of ID typically has less stringent requirements than those for primary ID.
For the sake of the discussion lets say the borrower does not have, and can't get, acceptable primary ID as required by your state but does have acceptable secondary ID. Then the use of Credible witnesses would be fine.

Again I do agree with the basic point I just don't think we should rule out the use of CWs for all loans.

Reply by celeste/ca on 7/20/06 11:19am
Msg #134254

Re: Agree but

Thanks for the posts. Here is one more thing, ID was valid, so it was not impossible to obtain. Loan docs had much more than ID, there was no way to identify her properly. Also, I hate being lied to, and that is what it was from the loan officer when she called me. Telling me she has never run into this type of problem, (bull) and the AKA statement covers her name.