Posted by carlosnyc on 3/1/05 11:11pm
Msg #23176

I need a little help please.....

This is a first for me, I have an early signing this morning and the borrower's name on the Mortgage is printed as, Mary G. Smith AKA Mary Glen Smith. Does she sign it exactly that same way with both names or can she just sign Mary G. Smith. In all the signings I've done this has never showed up for me. TIA for your replies.

Reply by jojo_MN on 3/1/05 11:17pm
Msg #23177

Have her sign EXACTLY as printed on each page. Some may be with the "G", some spelled out "Glen". If it states Mary G. Smith AKA Mary Glen Smith on every page, then she needs to sign it that way on every page.

Reply by fiKS on 3/1/05 11:26pm
Msg #23179

Are you saying she should sign as "Magy G. Smith AKA Mary Glen Smith"? Hmmmm....Isn't that redundant? I would have her sign the way her signature appears on her ID, whether it is "G" or "Glen". There should be a signature affidavit where she can submit both signatures and there's also the AKA affidavit that will say that she is one and the same. I don't see why she has to put both signatures on every line throughout the packet of loan docs.

Reply by Ernest_CT on 3/1/05 11:36pm
Msg #23180

I'm with fiKS on this one!

Mary G. Smith should sign "Mary G. Smith" (OR THE WAY THE MORTGAGE DOCUMENT LISTS HER FIRST) and let the Name Affidavit take care of the rest. That's why it's sometimes called "an a.k.a. affidavit".

If there is no Name Affidavit in the package, you should be able to find one elsewhere (probably here at Notary Rotary).

Reply by carlosnyc on 3/1/05 11:53pm
Msg #23181

Re: I'm with fiKS on this one!

Yes there is a Name Affidavit with both of her names preprinted on it but on the signature line, they preprinted her name as "Mary Smith". I'm scratching my head here, LOL

Reply by Roger/OH on 3/1/05 11:59pm
Msg #23182

Disagree

If she's vested on the mortgage as ______AKA______, then the signature line of the mortgage should be printed the same way as the vesting and signed exactly the same way with the AKA on that signature line, as well as on any other doc signature lines that read that way.

Reply by sue on 3/1/05 11:59pm
Msg #23183

Re: I'm with fiKS on this one!

Carlos, she signs above each line the way her name is printed below that line. You don't have her sign any other way. SIGN AS TYPED is the way every set of closing instructions has always been worded.

Reply by Ernest_CT on 3/2/05 12:36am
Msg #23187

Sorry, sue. Not buying it.

If the typed / printed name says "Mary G. Smith a.k.a. Mary Glenn Smith a.k.a. M. G. Smith a.k.a. ...." don't expect any signer to sign all those.

We'll all be curious to hear what Carlos gets as the final answer.

Reply by sue on 3/2/05 12:51am
Msg #23194

well you should

if that's how the lender has her name typed, that's how they want it signed. what you or the borrower wants to do doesn't come into the mix. the lender has prepared the paperwork their own way for whatever reason. How many loans have you done? How many have you ever had instructions telling you anything other than, sign as typed?

Reply by fiKS on 3/2/05 12:15am
Msg #23184

Re: I'm with fiKS on this one!

Carol - looks like there are two different opinions here and if I were you, I'd call the company who hired you. In my book, yes, we are always asked "to sign the way the name is printed" but we should also use common sense. In this case, common sense mean putting one signature and the affidavit takes care of the variation of signature and name. Singning two variation of signatures on every doc doesn't make sense. I did a loan last week where the borrower had 5 AKAs...how would that be handled by this same scenario? But then again, lending institutions don't always apply what makes sense! Or should I say - different view - to be politically correct!

Reply by fiKS on 3/2/05 12:21am
Msg #23185

Oops! Sorry, I meant Carlos..n/m

Reply by carlosnyc on 3/2/05 12:39am
Msg #23189

Re: I'm with fiKS on this one!

That's exactly what I was thinking...common sense tells me one signature, but like you, sue, and others have mentioned we are always asked "to sign the way the name appears on the docs".
Yes I will try to call the company that hired me but the only problem is my signing is a 8:30 AM and I don't think anyone will be in the office yet, but I'll try anyway. With that said, I'm going to bed now it's 1:30AM here in the east coast, LOL

Thank you all for your replies folks, I really appreciate it.
Oh...it's ok fiKS, you are forgiven, you're not the first person thats called me Carol, LOL

Reply by BrendaTX on 3/2/05 3:31am
Msg #23206

Some NSA Insight on This...

fiKS: "but we should also use common sense. In this case, common sense mean putting one signature and the affidavit takes care of the variation of signature and name"

The first thing I had to do was to forget anything I actually KNEW about legal documents and the law when I started my NSA business.

(1) You'll learn when to/not to use common sense...this is one of those when you do not. Logic has nothing to do with lender and title vesting reality.

(2) If you ever get a chance, and care to learn more about the business, go to a used book store and locate a real estate book that will define property instruments for you. You will learn a lot about what we do. This will help the signature stuff make sense. If it makes sense, it is not nearly so hard to remember why these things are important.

(3) I don't use AKAs in the field just to patch up problems with ID or vesting. I don't make them myself to use because the borrower and I have no business trying to cover problems of insufficient ID via notary crafted AKA. If you create AKAs on the fly to make Tonya Beth Matson become Tanya B Watson, you are creating a legal document which could affect the mortgagee or mortgagor in a negative way...and it it is UPL in Tx... IMHO. If an aka is needed, the title company/lender/lawyer should provide it. If they need it and do not, then you'll probably get another appointment out of it. You should not try to fix it yourself. Some do...I do not.

Reply by BrendaTX on 3/2/05 3:01am
Msg #23205

In Texas...fka nka aka

Just as an example...Did this signing right at Christmas:

Jason Chong, and wife,

Kate Chong fka Kate I. Jonesboroughappleby

All refi docs were emailed to me during the snows in OH. Package got caught up in FEDEX and there was a trailing Warranty Deed.

(1) Kate signed every single document as stated above, and bless her heart, she and her husband were in such a hurry to get home for the holidays. That was lots of signing.

(2) Went back for Warranty Deed which had already been executed "Kate Chong" (prior to the time I entered the picture) even though it was to be executed "KKate I. Jonesboroughappleby nka Kate Chong." (I think that was how they had it. It was different than the DOT, but don't want to split hairs on this as to what it might have been....the point is that Kate did not sign the entire blurb and it had to be redone.)

(3) IN TEXAS: Need the full name of the way the title is being established. I reason that the NKAs, AKAs, FKAs Affidavits would not be recorded with the Deed thus have little bearing on the vesting. The county clerk is who we are trying to please here, as I understand it. Clerks will never know about the AKA, etc. because they are not recorded in the property records.
I tell the B's that the signature must match as stated in the DOT or the property clerk may kick it back to them for resigning.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 3/2/05 7:59am
Msg #23213

Sign **EXACTLY** as printed!

I doesn't make any difference if there are AKA Statements, Name Affidavits, Signature/Name Affidavits, or anything else in the package to tie names together. None of those documents get recorded with the DOT/mortgage. It only allows the lender and title company to tie the names together. Therefore, to avoid an misinterpretation, and thus possibly be construed as UPL, unless otherwise directed, have the signers sign **exactly** as their name is printed beneath the signature line. You may think it's stupid or silly, but it is not you decision to make how the signer is to sign, nor which document they need to sign.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 3/2/05 12:45am
Msg #23190

Carlos
She signs exactly as her name is printed on the signature line.

Reply by Ernest_CT on 3/2/05 1:07am
Msg #23196

Sylvia, I respect your opinion above a lot of others here, but common sense (and the Name Affidavit) argues with the general rule "Sign as typed".

So she signs "Mary G. Smith a.k.a. Mary Glen Smith a.k.a. M. G. Smith a.k.a. M. Glen Smith" every place, and signs each document as it is typed on that specific document?

Reply by sue on 3/2/05 8:05am
Msg #23215

one more time

yes Ernest, sign as typed. Those are instructions given with EVERY loan package. NO WHERE and NEVER have you nor will you see instructions letting you or the borrower decide that you don't like the lender's version of their name giving you permission to use whatever part you want.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 3/2/05 9:57am
Msg #23225

Unfortunately where these companies are concerned, common sense doesn't always come into it.

All documents need to be signed as their signature is typed on the signature line. Whether we agree with it or not.

Reply by Bob-Chicago on 3/2/05 1:02am
Msg #23195

Do you think that is bad, try this...

Just did a signing where bwrs name was typed and Mr. John L. Smith on all docs
Mtg and RTC had two sig lines, One as Mr. John L. Smith and the other as John L. Smith
As Sylvia says, I had him sign just as it was typed
Good news is that I am not in California, or I would have had him running around the house looking for an ID that said, Mr. John L. Smith
He had a deep voice, a beard and a lady sitting there claiming to be his wife, so I took a chance and assumed that he was a Mr.
My record all timer was one where the bwrs were John and Suzie Jones
His name was typed as John Jones. Her's was typed as Andsuzie(sic) Jones
I drew the line at that one, and had her cross out and initial the "And" She signed as Suzie Put a big red ink note on the front of pkg when I sent it in . Never haeard a word back.

Reply by Ernest_CT on 3/2/05 1:12am
Msg #23197

Kind of off topic, but ...

... when I was answering phones for a public radio pledge drive we were told to ask for an honorific. I asked each female-sounding caller "Would you prefer Ms, Mrs., or Miss?" One woman brought me up short, with very good reason. She said "How about Doctor?"

Reply by Fiona Telado on 3/2/05 1:34am
Msg #23200

Ouch!....n/m

Reply by Ted_MI on 3/2/05 8:46am
Msg #23217

Re: Good for you, Bob.........

Bob,

It seems to me that you employed some common sense as opposed to mere rote adherence to instructions that you might have been given.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 3/2/05 9:17am
Msg #23220

Re: Good for you, Bob.........

The law and lender's and title instructions do not always make sense to us. Common sense is not all that common. However, to avoid any misinterpretations, always follow the instructions, whether you agree to them or not is immaterial. Just like driving. The speed limit may be set to 35 mph but you know the road, it's 4 lanes wide and straight and you can see for miles. So, your common sense says that 60 mph is acceptable. Wrong. <blinking blue and red lights appear in your rear-view mirror> It may not be right, it may not make sense to you, but "rote adherence to instructions" will keep you out of any trouble darn near every time.

Reply by Bob-Chicago on 3/2/05 9:50am
Msg #23223

Agree with Paul, but......

You can not get into too much trouble following instructions
However, if I was at a stop lite, and the light was red for 10 minutes, in the middle of the night , with no traffic, I might start to think that the light is broken , and proceed safely to run it after looking left and right , up and down. and behind me.
As Tom Cruise said in Risky Business, " Sometimes you just have to say .'what the heck' (or whatever he said)"
The "Andsuzi" situation was clearly a case of "if it came out of the comuter is must be right, or it would not have come out of the computer"
It was too late to call. If she had signed "as typed" it would most likely have to be a re-sign.
I could not have her sign as "Andsuzie" as that was not her name nor any variation of her name. Illinois gives us some discretion as to ID requirements. but not THAT much
I used my judgement based on many years of experience. Fortunately , I was correct.
Remember, I AM a professional, do not try this at home.
Hope everyone had a busy month end.

Reply by Charm_AL on 3/2/05 9:52am
Msg #23224

LOL!....n/m

Reply by PAW_Fl on 3/2/05 10:24am
Msg #23231

Re: Agree with Paul, but...... Point taken and noted...

There will ALWAYS be exceptions. These conditions are obvious, even to the untrained eye.

As for the "Andsuzi", if there were two lines for signature on the DOT/mortgage, one marked "Andsuzi" and the other simply "Suzi" and nothing was done to show that the "Andsuzi" was in error, that is, no signature above the printed name, the recording clerk would probably not even look to see if this was an "obvious" error and simply reject it out of hand, due to a missing signature.

There is a difference in correcting mistakes and ignoring them altogether because they don't make sense.

BTW - In your stuck red light scenario, it actually happened to me in Nashua, NH. I waited and waited and waited for the green light. It never changed. I looked all ways and proceeded through the intersection when it was safe to do so. Unfortunately I did not see the city police car on the the corner. After I went through the light, I was stopped and issued a summons for running a red light. Needless to say, it was dismissed as there was a documented malfunction of the signaling device, but the officer was following his instructions and issued a moving violation because I technically broke the law.

Reply by fiKS on 3/2/05 10:42am
Msg #23242

Re: Agree with Paul, but...... Point taken and noted...

PAW shared an experience "BTW - In your stuck red light scenario, it actually happened to me in Nashua, NH. I waited and waited and waited for the green light. It never changed. I looked all ways and proceeded through the intersection when it was safe to do so. Unfortunately I did not see the city police car on the the corner. After I went through the light, I was stopped and issued a summons for running a red light. Needless to say, it was dismissed as there was a documented malfunction of the signaling device, but the officer was following his instructions and issued a moving violation because I technically broke the law."


I REST MY CASE!!! What's in the rule book is not ALWAYS right.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 3/2/05 11:01am
Msg #23248

Re: Agree with Paul, but...... Point taken and noted...

fiKS wrote: "I REST MY CASE!!! What's in the rule book is not ALWAYS right."

To me, the rule book IS ALWAYS RIGHT. Just because we don't agree with it or there are reasons to break the rules, the rule book is still right. The officer was right to ticket me. Extenuating circumstances prevailed. That's why we have the system we do, so each case can be judged on its own merits.

However, please don't equivocate this example to signing documents. It isn't the same. There are no extenuating circumstances. It's comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they're both fruits, but they are not the same.

Reply by Ted_MI on 3/2/05 10:44am
Msg #23244

Re: BTW - comparable experience

Paul,

You might be interested to know that a number of years ago I parked my car in a new parking structure in a very convenient location. My car was there for about three or four days (which was not a problem in and of itself). When I returned I found a ticket for parking in a handicapped zone. A big ticket - like over a hundred bucks!! What had happened is the slot that I was parked in had become a handicapped parking space during the course of the time that I was parked there!! So I went to the police and complained and they checked their records and found out that sure enuf what I was saying was true. So the ticket was cancelled. Not surprising as I am sure you can appreciate that notice is at the heart of due process.

Reply by Ted_MI on 3/2/05 10:36am
Msg #23239

Re: SS input

Hi all,

The following is from the notary signing guide prepared by Nations Signature Closers:


If the signature on the documents contain an “also known as”, or AKA, the notary notarizes only the name that appears on the ID. First, the signer signs the document using the name as it appears on the ID, next writes “AKA”, and then signs the name as required on the document.


I don't know about the rest of you, but what is stated above seems a little confusing at first glance. Nor do I know if this is typical of the perspective of other ss's and title companies. But just thought I would post it.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 3/2/05 10:46am
Msg #23245

Re: SS input

My interpretation, literally, is that the signer signs his/her name exactly as it appears with the aka, fka, nka, wtta, whatever is under the signature line.

However, under notary law in most states, you can only notarize as to what the name is as it appears on their ID. So in the notary certificate, you do not include the aka, fka, nka, wtta, whatever, only the name of the signer as ID'd.

Reply by Debbie/NJ on 3/2/05 4:50am
Msg #23207

I had a signing like this and both the signing company and the title company wanted her to sign exactly as typed "Mary G. Smith aka Mary Glen Smith" on all documents. (I even had a HELOC to do with this signing too!) It took a long time but I guess I did OK because I never heard anything from either the signing company or the titel company and I have since gotten many other jobs from this particular signing company. Hope this helps.

Reply by Fiona Telado on 3/2/05 10:26am
Msg #23233

Oversign better than undersign

I guess this guidance comes into play. It'll be interesting to see what Carlos does and what the lender expected him to do. There are members on this board who works for county recorders office, or who used to. Would like to see their input on this subject.

Reply by Ted_MI on 3/2/05 11:23am
Msg #23253

Re: Beg to differ

Fiona,

I appreciate that the point you are making may apply only to this given situation. But as a general statement, it is permissable to undersign but not oversign. Let me provide you with a quote from the Michigan Notary Law primer (p. 16)


In certain circumstances, it may be acceptable for a signer to sign with an abbreviated form of his or her name (John D. Smith instead of John David Smith, for example), as long as the individual is signing with less than and not more than what is on the identification document .(less and more both in italics).

Reply by Sunny Notary/WA on 3/2/05 11:38am
Msg #23256

Re: Beg to differ

Ted_MI, that may be the case in Michigan, but I'm in Washington and everything I've ever read says, while neither is preferred, it's always better to oversign than undersign. As long as you have at least what is printed, it's permissible to have a little more than is printed...just not less. Maybe this is another one of those state-specific things.

As far as the AKA on the signature line, at the risk of beating this subject to death, I also had a situation where this happened to me and the SS made it very clear (notes everywhere) that the borrower was to sign "exactly as the name was printed." It did take longer to execute the signing, of course, but I never heard back from the SS and have also done signings for them since. I think it's always best to just have them sign exactly as the name is printed and not try to make your own decisions.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 3/2/05 11:50am
Msg #23260

Re: Beg to differ

Sunny Notary wrote: "... in Washington and everything I've ever read says, while neither is preferred, it's always better to oversign than undersign. As long as you have at least what is printed, it's permissible to have a little more than is printed...just not less. "

The last part of the sentence contradicts the first part. It says it's permissible to have a little more than is printed" which implies that the ID must contain more than the signature. That is undersigning where the name being signed is less than but fully contained in what is ID'd.

You can positively identify someone called "John Q. Public" if their ID reads "John Quincy Public". However you cannot positively identify someone as "John Quincy Public" if their ID only reads "John Q. Public" as "John Quinton Public" and "John Quiote Public" may also have ID's as "John Q. Public".

Reply by Ernest_CT on 3/2/05 1:00pm
Msg #23278

Thank you all ...

... for your opinions and citings. (Throws up his hands and begs for mercy.) I admit I was wrong. From now on I will have the borrower (or other signer) sign exactly the way the name is printed (with the exception of "AndSuzie"). (sigh) This thread has been most enlightening, and well worth the price of admission. (Yes, Hugh, that was pun highly intended.)

Reply by carlosnyc on 3/2/05 2:06pm
Msg #23290

Ok Ok Ok......

I didn't mean to start a war here, wowwee, LOL

The borrower signed her name exactly as is was printed on the Mortgage. I once again want to thank all of you all for helping me out, you guys and gals are wonderful. That's why I love coming to this board. At the risk of this sounding like an academy awards speech, I'll ended here, LOL

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reply by Fiona Telado on 3/2/05 3:20pm
Msg #23299

Re: Beg to differ

Ted

I actually feel that the borrower should sign one way (per ID) - either with full middle name or initial. However, Carlos (the original author of this thread) had an appt. at 8:30am. He came to this board for suggestions/help but there are conflicting opinions. Given that he can't get in touch with the lender or his scheduler, I suggested the "oversign" vs. "undersign". While signing both ways and again having the name and/or signature affidavit clarify the variation is redundant IMHO, what makes sense to me may not be the perception of the lending insitution. I would also bear in mind that the recording clerk may have a different perception.

Reply by Ted_MI on 3/2/05 3:26pm
Msg #23301

Re: Beg to differ

Fiona,

My concern was that I was afraid that readers might construe your statement encouraging oversigning as opposed to undersigning on too broad a basis, particularly given how the situation is reflected in Michigan law. I did try to acknowledge in my prior post that conceivably your comments were limited to the situation at hand.

And I agree with you that the perception of the lending institution is very sgnificant, unless its posture conflicts with state law.

Reply by Fiona Telado on 3/2/05 11:37pm
Msg #23378

I understand your concern, Ted....n/m