Posted by Brian/CA on 6/29/05 10:24pm
Msg #48927

notarizing with AKA specific for CA notaries.

Has anyone been asked to notarize a person's name as such:

Jane A Smith/AKA Jane A Jones

They want the borrower to sign her name that way on all the documents, and have it notarized.

Borrower only has ID in Jane A Smith. Would you believe title at the bank she got her orginal loan had her sign this way.

Reply by John_NorCal on 6/29/05 10:44pm
Msg #48932

I've never had that happen. But if she has proper ID as Jane A. Smith, I would think that should be good enough. It is weird though.

Reply by Brian on 6/29/05 11:50pm
Msg #48937

DR lic only identifies her as Jane A Smith. They even typed all the ack with both names and AKA. I can't identify her has AKA Jane A Jones. Doesn't belong on the ACK.

Reply by JanetK/CA on 6/30/05 2:27am
Msg #48951

If you can't ID her as Jane A. Jones, be sure to line that out of your acknowledgement, leaving just the name you CAN ID. Sounds like you had that figured out, but just in case...

Reply by DM/CA on 6/30/05 12:09am
Msg #48939

Yes, one of the title companies that I deal with does this all the time. They require her to sign the way it's written on the docs, but only require that my notarial certificates document the signature that appears on her ID.

As always, verify this with your title company. If they need you to verify both identities you can get credible witnesses or another acceptable ID to verify the AKA identity (the company I work with has never required that.)

Also, they will probably want you to make sure that both versions of the name appear on the name affidavit.

Reply by Dave_CA on 6/30/05 8:45am
Msg #48978

No to credible witness in CA

My understanding is that if the person has any of the acceptable ID, as defined in section 3 & 4 of the code, then you can't use credible witnesses.

They would have to find a notary who would ID them from personal knowledge or get either their ID or the name on the docs corrected.

Here is the relevant section of the code.

1185. (a) The acknowledgment of an instrument shall not be taken
unless the officer taking it personally knows, or has satisfactory
evidence that the person making the acknowledgment is, the individual
who is described in and who executed the instrument.
(b) For purposes of this article, "personally knows" means having
an acquaintance, derived from association with the individual in
relation to other people and based upon a chain of circumstances
surrounding the individual, which establishes the individual's
identity with at least reasonable certainty.
(c) For the purposes of this section "satisfactory evidence"
means the absence of any information, evidence, or other
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that
the person making the acknowledgment is not the individual he or she
claims to be and any one of the following:
(1) The oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally known
to the officer that the person making the acknowledgment is
personally known to the witness and that each of the following are
true:
(A) The person making the acknowledgment is the person named in
the document.
(B) The person making the acknowledgment is personally known to
the witness.
(C) That it is the reasonable belief of the witness that the
circumstances of the person making the acknowledgment are such that
it would be very difficult or impossible for that person to obtain
another form of identification.
(D) The person making the acknowledgment does not possess any of
the identification documents named in paragraphs (3) and (4).
(E) The witness does not have a financial interest in the document
being acknowledged and is not named in the document.
(2) The oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury of two
credible witnesses, whose identities are proven to the officer upon
the presentation of satisfactory evidence, that each statement in
paragraph (1) of this subdivision is true.
(3) Reasonable reliance on the presentation to the officer of any
one of the following, if the document is current or has been issued
within five years:
(A) An identification card or driver's license issued by the
California Department of Motor Vehicles.
(B) A passport issued by the Department of State of the United
States.
(4) Reasonable reliance on the presentation of any one of the
following, provided that a document specified in subparagraphs (A) to
(E), inclusive, shall either be current or have been issued within
five years and shall contain a photograph and description of the
person named on it, shall be signed by the person, shall bear a
serial or other identifying number, and, in the event that the
document is a passport, shall have been stamped by the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service:
(A) A passport issued by a foreign government.
(B) A driver's license issued by a state other than California or
by a Canadian or Mexican public agency authorized to issue drivers'
licenses.
(C) An identification card issued by a state other than
California.
(D) An identification card issued by any branch of the armed
forces of the United States.
(E) An inmate identification card issued on or after January 1,
1988, by the Department of Corrections, if the inmate is in custody.

(F) An inmate identification card issued prior to January 1, 1988,
by the Department of Corrections, if the inmate is in custody.
(d) An officer who has taken an acknowledgment pursuant to this
section shall be presumed to have operated in accordance with the
provisions of law.
(e) Any party who files an action for damages based on the failure
of the officer to establish the proper identity of the person making
the acknowledgment shall have the burden of proof in establishing
the negligence or misconduct of the officer.
(f) Any person convicted of perjury under this section shall
forfeit any financial interest in the document.

Reply by jl/soca on 7/6/05 11:01am
Msg #50017

Yes to credible witnesses in CA

Since they do not have proper ID, you may use two credible witnesses. It would be unreasonable and impossible for this person to get proper ID at this hour. The notary division says that two creditble witnesses can be used since the person does not have propert ID.

Reply by Brian on 6/30/05 12:19pm
Msg #49052

That is what I did, now they may want the whole name SmithAKAJones notarized. I agree the only way it can be done is to use credible witnesses in addititon to the drivers license.

Reply by Anon on 6/30/05 1:18am
Msg #48946

Signing with an AKA signature procedure is often used with hyphenated names.
For example: Joe Alan-Doe AKA Joe Doe. After the borrower amends the typed name don't forget to have them initial.

Reply by jl/soca on 7/6/05 11:11am
Msg #50019

You don't notarize the entire name, you notarize Jane A Smith. Jane A. Smith is making a statement that she is also known as Jane A Jones. You are only responsible for the Jane A. Smith.

The haven't asked you to notarize the entire statement, that would be wrong. In your acknowledgment wording or your jurat wording, you put Jane A. Smith, since that's how you ID'ed her and you are covered.

If the person signs Jane A. Smith, President, you can't notarize the "president" portion since California notaries cannot ID presidents, therefore you would only have Jane A Smith in your acknowledgment or jurat wording. By signing Jane A. Smith, President, she is making a statment that she is president, but you can only notarize Jane A. Smith.

This applies to the Jane A. Jones and the president, you can't ID them, they are statements made by Jane A. Smith.