I remember doing something like your friend early in my notary career. It just seemed to make sense that only one version of a name should be put into the notary certificate. I got my wrist slapped (figuratively) and probably lost a client over that. I went searching and couldn't find anything concrete to support that position.
I agree that the word "trustee" needs to be lined out but I've since concluded that as long as the ID supports both versions of the name, that it should be OK. Notice I said "versions" of a name. If we take off our notary hats for a second, we all know that just because a person's name is used differently doesn't mean it's a different person. We see that all the time on Sig/Name Affidavits. And as was mentioned by several people, specifying the correct pronouns can help clarify who appeared before the notary.
If there are two signers on a doc and one of them has two names shown, that might be a reason to use a separate certificate for each *person*, but I've never used two certificates on one document for one person when they're signing it twice. I've seen hundreds of packages with properties in a trust but I can't remember ever seeing two certificates included for that on a DOT. I'd think that a county recorder would have a problem with that if it was an issue.
Further, as someone has pointed out to me, we can leave "capacity(ies)" plural - or underline the "ies" to emphasize it - when there is one person signing in multiple capacities. My biggest concern would be the possibility of having an extra certificate that could potentially be separated and used for something else inappropriately. I think that's a much bigger issue - and possibly more easily incorrectly interpreted to look like two different people instead of one.
I recently ran into a related situation with an attorney (if memory serves) signing a commercial loan. There were two certificates provided on one document he was signing in more than one capacity. I said I was uncomfortable completing two certificates and explained why. I placed some calls (escrow and lender, I believe) and was told that their system automatically kicked out two certificates (in case it was husband and wife, for example), but that it would be no problem for me to just complete one. I haven't heard about there being any issues and it was long ago enough for it to have funded. (That was from a regular client, so I'm sure I'd have heard if there was a problem.)
I'm glad this issue was posted here. Even though I've been a notary for 16+ years, I try to stay aware that just because I've always done something a certain way doesn't mean it's the right way - even if that's what I was taught. (Teachers don't know everything, either.) I continue to learn from others which is the main reason I keep reading here. And I think this is the kind of obscure issue that's perfect for re-examining.
I don't know if this helps any or if it just muddies the waters more, but this is how I see it. |
| Messages in this Thread |
|  Something new for me. - Belinda/CA on 1/7/17 11:32am |
|  Re: Something new for me. n/m - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 11:59am |
| This is very common for me in commercial loan signings - ananotary on 1/7/17 12:06pm |
| Re: Something new for me. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 12:08pm |
|  You are over thinking it. It's not uncommon for one document - ananotary on 1/7/17 12:10pm |
|  Re: You are over thinking it. It - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 12:26pm |
|  Got it. I would have provided two so I guess we agree. n/m - ananotary on 1/7/17 12:49pm |
|  Yes, agreed...separate certs in CA n/m - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 1:48pm |
| LKT , what CA code states that? - rengel/CA on 1/8/17 1:30pm |
| Re: LKT , what CA code states that? - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 1:54pm |
| Re: LKT , what CA code states that? -  VT_Syrup on 1/8/17 2:45pm |
| Brilliant, VT Syrup!! - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 3:33pm |
| Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - BobbiCT on 1/7/17 12:55pm |
| Very common in CA also. n/m - ananotary on 1/7/17 1:25pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 6:21pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - VT_Syrup on 1/7/17 6:33pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 8:58pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 9:23pm |
| I'm sorry, but I agree with what VT was getting at - Linda_H/FL on 1/8/17 8:05am |
|  Re: I - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 9:44am |
| Re: Something new for me. - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 12:02am |
| Wait - I have a question... - Linda_H/FL on 1/8/17 9:48am |
| Yep, Linda is correct - Blueink_TN on 1/8/17 9:55am |
| Re: Wait - I have a question... - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 10:41am |
| Re: Wait - I have a question... - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 10:44am |
| One FINAL thought - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 10:58am |
| Re: One FINAL thought - ananotary on 1/8/17 11:26am |
| Re: One FINAL thought - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 12:32pm |
| Re: One FINAL thought - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 11:43am |
| Re: One FINAL thought - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 12:35pm |
| Oh Lordy. n/m - ananotary on 1/8/17 12:52pm |
| Re: I agree we have agreed the whole time-lol n/m - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 1:04pm |
|  Right? I even have a post above saying that. I guess the - ananotary on 1/8/17 1:09pm |
|  Again, where is the CA code that you are talking about? - rengel/CA on 1/8/17 1:47pm |
|  Re: Again, where is the CA code that you are talking about? - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 1:57pm |
| Re: Ca code section 1193 - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 9:01pm |
|  Re: Ca code section 1193 - VT_Syrup on 1/9/17 8:58am |
| Re: Wait - I have a question... - linda/ca on 1/9/17 6:21pm |
| Re:Correction...should have spelled separate, not seperate. n/m - linda/ca on 1/9/17 6:24pm |
| Re: Something new for me. - Donna LaBelle on 1/8/17 2:37pm |
| Surprised how many notaries are not commenting. - Belinda/CA on 1/8/17 5:36pm |
| Well, I've been pretty busy filling sandbags and putting - Cheryl Elliott on 1/9/17 8:18am |
| Re: Well, I*ve been pretty busy filling sandbags and puttin - VT_Syrup on 1/9/17 9:07am |
| Re: Well, I*ve been pretty busy filling sandbags and puttin - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 4:47am |
| I do exactly as Cheryl. One acknowledgement - garland/CA on 1/10/17 1:50pm |
| Re: Something new for me. - jojo_MN on 1/8/17 7:20pm |
| Me too JoJo, but they can't use the capacity in CA.. n/m - Linda_H/FL on 1/8/17 7:48pm |
 | Re: Something new for me. - JanetK_CA on 1/9/17 1:50am |
| Here's the California SOS language from handbook - Cheryl Elliott on 1/9/17 8:53am |
| It is very common in commercial loan signings for one person - ananotary on 1/9/17 11:03am |
| Re: It is very common in commercial loan signings for one person - JanetK_CA on 1/9/17 3:02pm |
| Thanks all. - Belinda/CA on 1/9/17 9:43pm |
| Re: Thanks all. - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 7:45am |
| Irrelevent - ananotary on 1/10/17 10:08am |
| Bingo! - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 11:59am |
| Yikes, we are all speaking to our experience - ananotary on 1/10/17 12:02pm |
| Re: Yikes, we are all speaking to our experience - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 12:51pm |
| It is common in commerical loans. It doesn't mean - ananotary on 1/10/17 1:23pm |
| Nope, won't accept as rhetorical.... - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 8:02pm |
| OK, you win. I should have stopped a LONG time ago. - ananotary on 1/10/17 11:16pm |
