Join  |  Login  |   Cart    

Notary Rotary
Sig Lines and ID's
Notary Discussion History
 
Sig Lines and ID's
Go Back to April, 2010 Index
 
 

Posted by Shoshana/AZ on 4/13/10 10:28pm
Msg #331612

Sig Lines and ID's

This is so weird to me.
Grant Deed sig line says Jane B. Doe AKA Jan B. Doe. Sig line on DOT says Jan B. Doe. I already sent an email to the TC. Just wanted to know if any of you have seen this and how you would ID the person?

Reply by Grammyzoom on 4/13/10 10:34pm
Msg #331613

It could be that the vesting on the property was misspelled when she took title originally and this is how they are trying to correct the vesting. Because it was in the name of Jane instead of the correct name of Jan they need her to sign off by using Jane.



Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 4/13/10 10:38pm
Msg #331615

So, would you ID her as Jan or Jane?

Reply by OR on 4/13/10 10:55pm
Msg #331618

You can only ID her to be who she is that her ID says she is today. I would make sure that Jan and Jane are both on the AKA form to cover the variation in her name if it was a true AKA. My mother changed the spelling in her name from a Gerry to Gerri to Geri during her life time. She is one of those chalanges. Hope that helps.


Reply by Grammyzoom on 4/13/10 11:05pm
Msg #331619

Ditto!

Reply by Pat/IL on 4/14/10 12:24am
Msg #331624

Ditto?

Grammy, are you saying that your grandmother changed her name from Gerry to Gerri to Geri during her lifetime too?

Reply by OR on 4/14/10 12:30am
Msg #331625

Re: No my moma did.....LOL n/m

Reply by OR on 4/14/10 3:13am
Msg #331634

Re: sorry my mama did. n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/14/10 3:18am
Msg #331636

Shoshana, I would look into the body of the content of the Grand Deed and see what the vesting is being changed to and from. My guess is that it is being changed to the name as it is on the DOT. But for the GD, I would ID her and put in my cert the name that matches the current vesting (i.e. changed from) which is usually how they sign -- if I'm understanding your post. (Or was the GD changing something else?)

If she has Jane on her ID, I wouldn't be concerned with the ID part, just what to write in the certificate, and I'm guessing that's what you meant with your question, no?

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 4/14/10 8:13am
Msg #331652

Janet, Check your email. n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/14/10 6:51am
Msg #331640

I've had a situation where the name was originally

misspelled on original docs ("Mary Ann" when it should have been "Maryann"Wink. When she went to transfer the property, she said she wanted it corrected to say "Maryann", we told her that the only way to go about this was to put "Mary Ann a/k/a Maryann".

Sounds like maybe it was supposed to be Jan B. Doe all along, but somewhere along the line she must have originally titled the property in Jane B. Doe and it was looked over.

Reply by cawest/PA on 4/14/10 7:00am
Msg #331645

Re: I've had a situation where the name was originally

Did she have to sign *Mary Ann aka Maryann* or did they require one sig with Mary Ann and a second one with aka Maryann?

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/14/10 8:50am
Msg #331656

She signed only as "Maryann"

How the signature itself is made doesn't really matter for the legality of the document ... it is title companies that come up with all of these ridiculous requirements that the person sign exactly as printed or exactly as stated on their ID or with a/k/a's or f/k/a's, etc. Although I always instruct the signer to sign exactly as their name is printed, in cases of a/k/a's we just have them sign however they usually sign. The signatures are illegible half the time anyway.

Reply by cawest/PA on 4/14/10 6:58am
Msg #331643

not long ago a TC did make me go back on a AKA sig ... I had the customer sign with the name on the ID and they told me to have the customer sign below her first sig with the AKA sig.
I just cannot recall which doc it was in the package but I would say the GD.


Reply by ReneeK_MI on 4/14/10 7:13am
Msg #331647

See #143795 ...

I am extremely cautious with these situations, and it is MHO that title agents & NSA's are far too cavellier with using the "a/k/a". If you read my old message, you'll see one reason why.

Every situation calls for its own best solution. From the notary public's standpoint, a person is NOT "also known as" someone they are NOT, and I just won't roll that way. My 'politely suggested' solution to the issue of a person's name being misspelled when vested on title is to use "W/T/T/A" (who took title as). That makes an entirely different (and IMO, correct) statement than saying they are "also KNOWN as".

I can then attest to the identity of the signer, without involving myself in the identity of the 'non-existant person' (the misspelled name).

John Doe might correctly & legitimately be a/k/a John M. Doe, or vice-versa. But Jhon Doe (IMO) is not a/k/a John Doe. John Doe w/t/t/a Jhon Doe - that can be an accurate statement. Since "w/t/t/a" describes an action of the person - it does not get entered into my cert (MI doesn't allow capacity, nor do I consider it a capacity anyway - it was an action). My cert attests to the signature of the person - John Doe - and not what John Doe did (took title as ...)



Reply by ReneeK_MI on 4/14/10 7:21am
Msg #331648

FWIW, follow-up to #143795 ...

The husband & wife were totally trying to scam obtaining a cash-out refi, without the knowledge of the very much alive & most definitely on-title mother. This is how liars lie - they can sit and stare you right in the face without blinking, act incredulous and INSIST on the accuracy of their story.

Reply by cawest/PA on 4/14/10 7:28am
Msg #331650

Re: FWIW, follow-up to #143795 ...

Just read your original post and indeed it is a very interesting post that will make me be a bit stronger when calling the TC's on one.

Reply by Grammyzoom on 4/14/10 8:27am
Msg #331653

Shoshana, look what you started!

I read all of the posts this morning and had to chuckle at some of the comments. First of all my Mother did not change her name over and over again and the ditto was a short way of sayin that I agreed with that portion of the message that pertained to the question posed.

I have seen this situation with the AKA many many times over the years and it is something that can be very innocent or it can be something that is intended to commit a fraud so in any event we must be very careful. I have only seen this as an intention to commit fraud once and it was only because of the questions we asked that we got suspicious and involved the lender.

The bottom line for me personally, and what I teach, is that if there is any doubt call the TC and let them sort it out. Do not make assumptions. The same situation holds true for a married person in a marriage state that is signing without the spouse. It always needs to be addressed. Let the TC decide whether or not the spouse needs to sign as an NBS or not.

This is only my opinion and if I have learned anything from this forum it is that we all have varied opinions on the same subject when it comes to judgement calls.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 4/14/10 9:07am
Msg #331658

Re: Shoshana, look what you started!

I will wait for the definitive answer from the TC. He is taking title in a different first name than what's on the grant deed. I'll let them sort it out. Right now, I am off to the gym for Pilates and water aerobics.

Reply by Grammyzoom on 4/14/10 9:36am
Msg #331662

And I am off to a signing..47 pages Sellers side only! n/m

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 4/14/10 12:55pm
Msg #331693

Are you ready for the answer?

It doesn't matter which name matches the ID, as long as one does.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/14/10 3:06pm
Msg #331709

Oy Vey! Check email... n/m


 
Find a Notary  Notary Supplies  Terms  Privacy Statement  Help/FAQ  About  Contact Us  Archive  NRI Insurance Services
 
Notary Rotary® is a trademark of Notary Rotary, Inc. Copyright © 2002-2013, Notary Rotary, Inc.  All rights reserved.
500 New York Ave, Des Moines, IA 50313.