Posted by Hailswath on 4/30/10 4:53pm
Msg #334379

Suffix of Sr. and not on ID

I have signing where the borrower's ID does not show the suffix Sr. and has no other ID with Sr. The title is held with the suffix Sr. Would it be correct to have the borrower sign with the suffix but not include the suffix in the acknowledgement?

Reply by MW/VA on 4/30/10 5:52pm
Msg #334386

I encounter that a lot. It seems that they start using Sr. when they have a son, but don't necessarily think to change all the ID to reflect that. My state doesn't say the name on the ID has to match the name on the docs exactly. I just need to be satisfied that they are who they say they are. They usually have something with Sr. or Jr. on it. In my experience, we always use the name in the ack exactly as it is on the docs.
This is one of those PIA issues for notaries. It's been discussed at length before. I know there are many who will not agree with my approach.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/30/10 5:54pm
Msg #334387

I agree with MW. My approach also. n/m

Reply by MistarellaFL on 4/30/10 6:48pm
Msg #334402

I agree too n/m

Reply by PAW on 4/30/10 7:08pm
Msg #334405

Re: I agree with MW. My approach also.

I do too. Lucky for us, we can use the following style for these conditions: "... by John Doe who represented to me that he is also known as John Doe Sr., and provided <form of identification> in the name of John Doe, as identification."

Reply by MW/VA on 4/30/10 7:54pm
Msg #334412

BTW, I always make sure the variation is covered on the

Name & Signature (AKA) Affidavit. That way they are swearing to it under oath.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/30/10 8:14pm
Msg #334414

Re: BTW, I always make sure the variation is covered on the

I'm a Sr and it's on my DL, Passport. When there is an issue ( no Jr or Sr) it often show up on the credit report. The name (AKA) affidavit usually takes care of that when ID the borrower. I had one Yesterday, no Jr on the DL. If he was Sr. he had credit history before he was born. Thank God he wasn't George Farmer.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/30/10 8:29pm
Msg #334420

Re: BTW, I always make sure the variation is covered on the

*George Farmer*

LOL...did you mean George Foreman?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Foreman:

*Foreman has 11 children, and each of his five sons are named George: George Jr., George III, George IV, George V and George VI. His four older sons are distinguished from one another by the nicknames "Monk", "Big Wheel", "Red", and "Little George". He also adopted a daughter, Isabella Brandie Leelja, in 2009.*

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/30/10 8:41pm
Msg #334421

Re: yes, sorry...great dinner, w/ w wine and sea bass n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 7:31pm
Msg #334407

How would ANYONE get an ID with "Sr." on it?

Once someone has a son and names him "Jr.", the father has not undergone a legal name change. He may start using "Sr." out of custom but I doubt that the DMV would allow him to add it to his driver license unless he has had it added by court order.

Now that I think of it, my step-brother is a "Jr.", and it says "Jr." on his birth certificate, and yet it is not on his driver license. THAT is an even bigger problem IMO... he and his dad have the same name on their ID, with no suffix. So either one could forge the other's signature and get it notarized. Scary.

Reply by MW/VA on 4/30/10 7:51pm
Msg #334411

Re: How would ANYONE get an ID with "Sr." on it?

Yes, that seems to be a major concern for many notaries. The potential for fraud by a son signing, posing as his father. I fully respect the passing of a name. It is a huge headache when it comes to credit issues. I've heard how many people get the other's good or bad credit on their credit report. It shouldn't happen, because of ss #s, but it does.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 8:02pm
Msg #334413

This again goes back to lack of uniform legal name standards

Everyone should have one complete legal name, and it should be the same on the D/L, social security card, passport, etc.

There are TONS of driver licenses out there that either have just a middle initial, are missing a suffix, have the woman's maiden name as her middle name, etc. This leaves a lot open to fraud, especially the Sr/Jr missing on the D/L.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/30/10 8:25pm
Msg #334418

Re: This again goes back to lack of uniform legal name standards

"have the woman's maiden name as her middle name"

My DL had my maiden name as my middle name on it for years. When I got my drivers license in Florida they wouldn't allow me to put my legal middle name on my license, it was customary back then, for reasons only known to them, for them to use maiden name as middle name.

Wasn't until recent years they allowed the legal middle name. I then took proof of my legal middle name and had my drivers license changed.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 8:27pm
Msg #334419

At one point I came across the Florida DMV handbook

used by D/L examiners, and it contained a whole section on how names could be listed. That handbook is no longer available online; I wish I had kept a copy of it to give out to wedding clients who always have questions about changing their name.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/30/10 8:17pm
Msg #334416

It used to be, at least in Idaho, one could change one's

name just be assuming the name - it didn't take a court order. The catch was that it was illegal to do so if for any nefarious purpose. I assumed my step-father's name in CA when I was two - kept it until I got married.

Many of the Jr.s have said to me that now that Dad was gone, they were going to drop the suffix, and likewise, many Sr.s have mentioned it helped to separate the two with the same name.

I'm not sure adding Sr is a necessarily legal thing. It's a suffix, like Esq, or prefix, like Dr. It's not a change of ~name~, it's a status or designation, no?

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 8:24pm
Msg #334417

Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

The problem is, what government agency will recognize a common-law name change? None that I know of. I changed my name when I was 15, and had to do it through court order. You can't go into the DMV and say, "I have changed my name under common law. Can I get a new driver license?".

>>>I'm not sure adding Sr is a necessarily legal thing. It's a suffix, like Esq, or prefix, like Dr. It's not a change of ~name~, it's a status or designation, no?<<<

I believe that's correct. But, Sr. is different because it becomes part of the name. I think that is another example of the common law assumed name thing. But titles such as Dr. or Esq. are different because those are not part of someone's name, but rather a professional designation.

Although I did have a co-worker whose nephew had the suffix "Esq." on his birth certificate. In some states he would be prosecuted for impersonating a lawyer by using his full legal name!

Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/30/10 10:09pm
Msg #334433

Re: Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

"Although I did have a co-worker whose nephew had the suffix "Esq." on his birth certificate. In some states he would be prosecuted for impersonating a lawyer by using his full legal name!"

I don't think so. "Esq" is a courtesy title that dates back to medieval England; it has no legal significance and can be used by anyone with an overblown ego (as long as they're not trying to pass themselves off as an attorney). It's use to indicate an attorney is custom, not law - just as a doctor earns an MD, an attorney earns a JD, and THAT is the title you shouldn't use...

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/30/10 10:17pm
Msg #334434

Re: Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

"Esq" is a courtesy title that dates back to medieval England"

Exactly right Mike Letters (and bills LOL) to my father always had Esq after my father's name.
It was a courtesy title.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/30/10 10:50pm
Msg #334436

Re: Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

I remember years ago (and I'm probably dating myself here) that when birthday cards or whatever were sent to male children, people would sometimes add "Esq." after the child's name...
It meant nothing, other than to make the kid feel important....

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/1/10 1:50am
Msg #334454

True, Mike, I've read stories about that... <laughter> n/m

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/1/10 8:46am
Msg #334473

Re: Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

Aha! In England a card or a letter to a child would be addressed to "master childs name"

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 11:23pm
Msg #334440

In Arizona, using "Esq." if you are not an atty is UPL

Arizona Supreme Court Rule 31(a)2A:

"Unauthorized practice of law includes but is not limited to:
- Engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to practice pursuant to to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d); or
- Using the designations "lawyer," "attorney at law," counselor at law," "law," "law office," "J.D.," "Esq.," or other equivalent words by any person or entity not authorized to practice pursuant to to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specifically admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d), the use of which is reasonably likely to induce others to believe that the person or entity is authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state."

http://www.azbar.org/WorkingWithLawyers/upl_text.cfm

Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/30/10 11:52pm
Msg #334443

No, it's not...

Court rules only apply to those actually appearing before the court - they are not law. I thought you were a paralegal - weren't you taught this?

You've still got 49 other states to check...

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 11:55pm
Msg #334445

It is UPL in Arizona to use the title Esq. - clear as day n/m

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/1/10 12:18am
Msg #334448

You need to get your glasses checked...

You have no idea what you're talking about, Robert.

Court rules are exactly that - rules of the court. They are NOT law, they determine how the courts deal with those who appear before them. This is basic stuff... how do you not know this?

Just because the AZ Supreme Court says in its rules that it considers the courtesy title of "Esquire" to indicate that one is an attorney, that only applies when that person ACTUALLY APPEARS BEFORE THE COURT. It does not mean you can't use the term outside of court, as long as you don't try to convince others that you are an attorney.

If you can't understand the distinction between court rules and law, you might want to start looking for another line of work.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 12:48am
Msg #334449

Using that line of logic, a non-attorney giving legal advice

outside of the courtroom is not engaging in UPL.

The Arizona Supreme Court has defined UPL. That definition includes using the title "Esq.".

How about this... you move to Arizona and start using the title, and see how it goes.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/1/10 12:58pm
Msg #334496

Re: Using that line of logic, a non-attorney giving legal advice

Did you learn logic at the same place they taught you law? If so, I would ask for my money back if I were you... The two things are totally unrelated, so there's no way you could infer one from the other. Not that it stopped you from trying.

You say you work in a law office - are you really completely unfamiliar with the concept of court rules, and how they differ from actual statutes? From the website of the AZ Supreme Court:

"The Arizona Supreme Court establishes court rules for all the state courts in Arizona."

Court rules govern how business is conducted within the courtroom, not outside of it.

I'm too busy to move to AZ right now, so why don't you go there and ask the court yourself? Or better yet, find an actual state or federal LAW that proves your point.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 5/1/10 1:08pm
Msg #334497

Is this really necessary?

Mike, why is it necessary for you to be so abrasively contentious on a matter of professional disagreement?

He stated his belief. You disagreed with it. All that was necessary was for you to state the areas of your disagreement; you didn't need to attack his creditials for stating his belief. Most of the time, the bitter disputes that characterize the Just Politics forum don't crop up in the Discuss Work forum, and that certainly makes for much better, more pleasant and even more productive reading. I think it's best to keep it that way.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/1/10 4:04pm
Msg #334517

Re: Is this really necessary?

Thank you. Your opinion will receive all the consideration it deserves.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 1:58pm
Msg #334503

Fine, you win... Mike, Esq. n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 11:56pm
Msg #334447

Not to mention that anyone who goes around using "Esq." when

they are not an attorney is likely to be thought of as pompous. Some attorneys think it is even pompous for attorneys to use.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/1/10 1:54am
Msg #334455

Since when is being "pompous" illegal? Some history of

the term may be helpful here.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 1:58am
Msg #334457

Re: Since when is being "pompous" illegal? Some history of

Anyone who knows how to work Wikipedia will see that Esq. was not originally created for attorneys, and the American tradition of the Esq. designation for attorneys is not customary in other countries. I personally think that after all the schooling lawyers have to go through, they deserve those three letters after their name. But there are many attorneys who do not like it because they find it to be pompous. Check out our last few Florida Bar newsletters.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 4/30/10 11:41pm
Msg #334441

Re: Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

***just as a doctor earns an MD, an attorney earns a JD, and THAT is the title you shouldn't use...***

I don't know that it is exactly right to refer to the designation of professional attainment as a "title". The **title** for someone holding an MD or a JD is "Dr." In either case, you can claim the title whether you ever actually were licensed to practice the profession. Traditionally, though, for those with doctorates in humanities disciplines, you don't use the "Dr." at all; you simply add the PhD or EdD or whatever after the name. Only those with doctorates in medicine typically use the "Dr." title, but anyone with a doctoral level degree actually can use it if he desires. That is most often done orally, when it would be awkward to say, "Hi, I'm Fred Nerd, BA, MA, PhD."

In Georgia many years ago, lawyers were called, by old Southern custom, "Col." Whether that is still the case I don't know, since I haven't practiced there in almost 30 years. The first time I heard the term used, it was a judge addressing an attorney about 27 years old. I was mighty impressed that he had achieved such high rank so quickly.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/30/10 11:53pm
Msg #334444

Re: Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

In my area we would NEVER call a lawyer "Dr.", even though the degree is a "Juris Doctor". Lawyers are addressed as "Mr." or "Ms.". In addition, I disagree that you don't use "Dr." for those with doctorates who are not medical doctors - I know a ton of people who are "Dr.'s" due to a PhD rather than an MD.

The best title is "The Honorable" - talk about medieval England! We only use it for judges. Whenever I hear it I think of judges in powdered wigs, which I know are still regular attire in some countries. Some court clerks style themselves "the Honorable", but the clerk in my county does not, and to be honest I don't see what is so honorable about someone whose responsibility is to file away documents. Clerks are no more public officials than we as notaries are. Wikipedia gives a laundry list of officials that can use it, but in my experience I have only ever seen it used in my area for judges, state senators/representatives, and school board officers (and even that, I think, is questionable).

On a side note - Commissioners of Deeds in Florida used to be given the title "The Honorable" on their commission certificates. I think this practice was discontinued when their powers were limited to notarizing timeshare documents.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/30/10 11:56pm
Msg #334446

Re: Voluntary name changes is well-established in common law

Point taken, but would you agree that "Esq." has about the same legal significance as "Col."?

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/30/10 11:12pm
Msg #334439

My thinking is that Sr is the status - the circumstance - of

a father who's son now carries his name. He doesn't go to the local court house to get permission from the judge. Everyone knows the elder from the younger in word, deed, and paper by virtue of that very particular designation. And I know that some sons drop the Jr after Dad's gone, and some Dads just like to relish the distinction and that ~je ne sais pas quoi~ that Sr brings.

Either designation doesn't interfere with my IDing, because it is not a "part" of the name, in that in its absence he would be someone else.

JMHO

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/1/10 1:25am
Msg #334450

No necessarily so ...

<<Either designation doesn't interfere with my IDing, because it is not a "part" of the name, in that in its absence he would be someone else.>>

I would tend to disagree with your HO, Susan, because such suffixes are part of a person's name. They are not titles. And without such designations, they could indeed be someone else. But this has been debated endlessly, so let's not go there again- ever. But returning to the OP: As I understand it, the docs had Sr. He has no ID with Sr.
The question was: Would it be correct to have the borrower sign with the suffix but not include the suffix in the acknowledgement?

Well, yes and no. He would sign with Sr. because that's the way his name is printed on the docs. We would acknowledge his signature with Sr. because that's the way his name is printed on the docs. We're trapped. Anyway, at what point does Daddy become a Sr.? Nobody's born a Sr. Does Dad have to go to court at some point to make Sr. a part of his name? Can he just willy-nilly become a Sr.? That's why when I see Sr. on docs, I just give up because it's hardly ever on the ID. They always say they just became Sr. one day to distinguish themselves from Jr.
Speaking of Jr., a son is born with that suffix; it is on his BC. If docs had Jr., I would need to see ID with Jr., or it's a no go. But what if the reverse were true? Well, they could always oversign, but then we would still be acknowledging the signature without the Jr., so what good does that do?

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 1:36am
Msg #334452

Agree - that is the difference

For "juniors", most of them have "Jr." actually stated on their birth certificate as a part of their legal name, whereas "Sr." is more of an "assumed" suffix.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/1/10 1:48am
Msg #334453

All good points, GoldenGirl, and dipped if I would argue.

Sometimes, it's all just a mystery that unravels itself signing after signing, and we do our best to do our best.

It's so frequently that docs are drawn with someone other than the borrower's *actual* signature, John Q Public, are printed with John Public, for instance. That's a lousy sentence, but you get my drift. The problem could be helped if someone took care to ask the borrower his preference and resolve these issues prior to our signings. Sigh.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/1/10 2:13am
Msg #334458

Re: All good points, GoldenGirl, and dipped if I would argue.

***The problem could be helped if someone took care to ask the borrower his preference and resolve these issues prior to our signings. ***

We can only dream, Susan! Nighty-nite.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/1/10 2:16am
Msg #334459

It's not a matter of preference, it's how title was vested. n/m

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/1/10 3:44am
Msg #334464

And, if it's not previously vested properly to the bo's

preference, a QCD fixes that, no?

Reply by PAW on 5/1/10 8:18am
Msg #334471

Re: How would ANYONE get an ID with "Sr." on it?

I have seen "SR" on a couple of licenses from Florida. Depending on the DMV office and clerk, many variations to a persons name is acceptable by some, and rejected by others. Maiden names being one issue, and Suffixes (Sr., Jr., II, III, etc.) being others.

Another issue with driver's licenses is very long names. There is a finite number of characters allowed in the "legal name" field, but sometimes, a person's name is longer than the field allows. This creates some problems too.

Thankfully, D/L name problems are the exception rather than the rule for identification purposes. The FL SOS in one of their newsletters (I think it was a newsletter) addressed the issue to some degree. The FL statute states that the notary must "rely" on the information contained in the acceptable form of ID. It doesn't state that the information must match exactly, so there is still some leeway for the notary to ascertain that the person appearing before them is the named person on the document. This is often accomplished by relying on an acceptable form of ID (e.g., driver's license) and other supporting documentation such that the notary "has satisfactory evidence, that the person whose signature is to be notarized is the individual who is described in and who is executing the instrument."

Ref: Florida Governor's Reference Manual for Notaries, 2001, pg 32, and Subsection 117.05(5) of the Florida Statutes.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 9:56am
Msg #334478

Re: How would ANYONE get an ID with "Sr." on it?

The most common problem I run into is the maiden name listed as the middle name, particularly on older women's driver licenses. Most of the time I run into this when notarizing wills. But under the circumstances, I can usually determine, from the address that the person provides and the address on the D/L, as well as doing my own research of public records, that Jane Smith Doe and Jane Marie Doe are one and the same person.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/3/10 3:30am
Msg #334637

I don't know, but I've seen several - must be a state issue n/m