Posted by kathy/ca on 9/24/06 1:38am
Msg #148178

CW? Doc's include maiden & name. ID in married name only....

BRW married 20 years, hasn't used maiden time for that long. Would this be considered a difficult/impossible situation to get valid ID to match doc's (including maiden name)? Would you use Credible Witnesse's or decline to notarize?

Reply by Barbara O on 9/24/06 6:48am
Msg #148187

Re: CW? Doc's include maiden & name. ID in married name only

I think at that point I would tell them you need a credible witness and then make sure on the aka form that both names are written. I love when I get to a signing and the borrower looks at some of the names they have put on there like "What??? I have never been called that!" (On aka, not on rest of forms) SOmetimes I wonder where the SS gets their name information from.

Reply by LC/AZ on 9/24/06 8:18am
Msg #148195

Re: CW? Doc's include maiden & name. ID in married name only

I was told by a title company that on the aka, they only sign the names that apply to them.

Reply by NCLisa on 9/24/06 10:38am
Msg #148216

Re: CW? Doc's include maiden & name. ID in married name only

The lender gets the names off the credit report. In dept. stores, etc. when you have people inputting info for instant credits etc, they have typos, mispell names, hear it differently than the person said it, etc. That is where so many variations come from. Some of the info on the credit report may also be reported and it isn't the person at all.

Reply by LC/AZ on 9/24/06 11:13am
Msg #148226

Re: CW? Doc's include maiden & name. ID in married name only

Good info, Lisa. I learn alot from you. Thanks!

Reply by Gary_CA on 9/24/06 8:20am
Msg #148196

I don't think so...

I don't see how you can put the CW under the required oath if a signer has Id but not in the right name. I think if you asked the SOS the immediate answer is going to be "make new docs" I understand that doesn't work, but it would seem to be the law.

Here's the requirements from the handbook.... check out condition #4 from the handbook (#3's a stretch, but it seems to me #4's a deal breaker)...

Under oath, the credible witness must swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that each of the following is true (Civil Code section 1185(c)(1)(A)-(E)):

1. The individual appearing before the notary as the signer of the document is the person named in the document;

2. The credible witness personally knows the signer;

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;

5. The credible witness does not have a financial interest and is not named in the document
signed.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 9/24/06 9:54am
Msg #148206

Don't mean to horn in on a CA thread, but how would .....

your customary CW (neighbor) have any knowledge of the
bwr's maiden name?
We don' t normally use CWs in Ill because they are reqd to
know BOTH the bwr AND the NP, but they strike me as a very
unreliable source of proper identificaiton.
I have known a guy named Bill for 25 years. I have
no idea if if is William , Williard, Bill or Billy, and have no idea
if he even has a middle name. Would that make me a credible witness
for William Jerome "Jones"?

Reply by CaliNotary on 9/24/06 11:50am
Msg #148234

This is what drives me crazy

And shows why the use of credible witnesses is so dangerous and used so incorrectly so often. Way too many people on this board simply view credible witnesses as a simple way to get around proper ID procedures and just get the docs signed no matter what.

If the borrower has told you that she hasn't used a name in 20 years, I'TS NOT HER NAME ANYMORE!!! That it was once her name is irrelevant. By breaking out the credible witnesses in this type of situation the notary is helping the borrower commit fraud.

Use some freaking common sense people. How can you justify notarizing a signature when the person has just told you that isn't her name?

Reply by kathy/ca on 9/24/06 12:33pm
Msg #148239

I follow, but what make's the CW issue so unclear is if the

BRW produce's NO ID, it is accectable to use CW. SO, why then, if thy don't have ID that matche's what is on the document's, wouldn't they just say they have NO ID and get 2 CW? IMO, unless the person is an invalid, it is not "difficult or impossible" to obtain current photo ID. We all have them and I dont think any of us have had a difficult time obtaining them.

Reply by CaliNotary on 9/24/06 12:44pm
Msg #148241

You're absolutely right

Which is why CW should only be used on very rare occasions.