Posted by SarahBeth_CA on 9/15/05 11:43am
Msg #65374

ID Insufficient

Last night went to a signing. A piggyback overnight docs. Get to the borrowers and get thier ID's to record in my journal. The docs have Mrs. B as Jane B. Smith-Doe. Her DL has Jane Borrower Smith. Her military ID has Jane Borrower Doe. She had nothing accepted by the state that has contains both last names. So I can't notarize anything. LO for contact was not available, I told the person who was answering the issue. She asks if thier a marriage license. I tell her that is unacceptable in CA. She understands as she is also a notary. So she gets me another LO. I explain to him the issue. He asks what ID was used a couple of years ago. I tell him her DL, whoever did the last signing for them didn't follow CA law. He says there's an AKA in the package (also to be notarized with hyphenated name). I tell him it doesn't cover pages to be notarized with a name unsupported by ID. So LO gets pissed and starts yelling into the phone. "Well then you just leave the docs there and I'll get someone who will do it (that's illegal). You're fired (he didn't hire me so that's just doesn't impress me). I have been a LO for 16 years (whoopdie doo are you a CA notary... no.. oh ok that means alot to me) and I have never heard of this, it's a crock of sh**." So I just raised my voice a little and said "I will not jeapordize my commision". He hung up on me. So I leave a message with the ss. Also I was uncomfortable leaving the docs there as I was hired by an ss and would rather take my instruction from him. I'm unsure as to have someone come get them or just FedEx them back. At first I told the borrower I could bring them back if that's what the ss wanted. But even Mr. B said "but that wont do us any good" I agreed.

This is the first assignment for this ss. I accepted it then researched the company and had mixed feelings. When he called he gave me his name and that another notary (who's name I did recognize) had recommended me to him. Went thru the particulars. I asked company name, he gave me the lenders name. Then I thought I blew the quote because I thought it was an ss calling. But when I call they answer with the lenders name. So later I looked them up and it turns out this guy owns the ss and works out of the lenders office and takes an ss cut. So I'm sure I'm sol for even a trip fee. I also didn't like the way the confirmation was worded. It said "I will pay you xxx for the successful resolution of this loan". It didn't say no sign no pay but it's practicaly the same thing. I'm going to give this guy a call again today and see if he is fair. If not I'll let you know. Which brings me back to the docs. They really aren't any good other than to have someone break the law. Mrs. B totaly understood why I couldn't notarize as she is in the insurance business and knows that people don't always do what they are supposed to and understands that following the law is first and foremost. What would you do with the docs?

I have to say thanks to NotRot because if it weren't for the members experiences posted I would not have been able to keep my composure. Knowing that these things do happen sometimes I was able to keep my cool.

Reply by CaliNotary on 9/15/05 12:05pm
Msg #65377

If they told you to leave the docs, you should have left the docs. I don't blame you for not doing the signing, but it can't be your concern what happens after the fact. Remember, knowing somebody personally is acceptable as well, so if the borrower knows a notary she could have everything legally notarized.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 9/15/05 12:23pm
Msg #65396

>>> If they told you to leave the docs, you should have left the docs. <<<

If I remember correctly, it was the LO who told the notary to leave the docs. As far as I'm concerned, the LO can't tell me what to do. I'm under contract from the title company or an SS and that's whose orders I follow. And most times, the standing order is if the borrowers don't sign, you don't leave documents. Period. If the LO wants to provide documents to the borrower, let them. However, unless otherwise instructed by whoever hired me, I take everything back I came with, including borrower's copy.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/15/05 12:09pm
Msg #65387

Opinions anyone?

I'm curious if anyone else might see it as "reasonable reliance". Both DL and Military ID are valid for IDing a person. Both have photograph, description of person, signed by person and have identifying number. One shows ID as Jane Borrower Smith and the other as Jane Borrower Doe, so you have seen evidence that she is infact who she is. Could you use BOTH ID's as "valid ID".

Quoting from the CA notary Handbook:

"(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."

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 9/15/05 12:23pm
Msg #65395

Re: Opinions anyone?

Cali, I had not thought about that. I did explain to them that they were close-by and it wouldn't be an issue to take the docs back. I know I really don't want them in my possesion. Hmmm maybe I was a little rattled. Still haven't spoke to the ss yet. Gonna try again in a minute.

Barb the law reads "any one of the following," they should not consider it reasonable reliance.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/15/05 12:29pm
Msg #65398

Re: Opinions anyone?

I saw the "one" - I'm just playing devil's advocate here. You did right.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 9/15/05 12:33pm
Msg #65400

Re: Opinions anyone?

Agree, she was careful and did right. But...still struggling with the case of valid CA DL, and a military ID, both acceptable as forms of ID and perfectly supporting the identity of the signer, with photos, etc. etc.

I despise hair splitting and think this is a tiny bit grey, imo.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 9/15/05 1:17pm
Msg #65412

Re: Opinions anyone?

The "that" I was refering to was the personal knowledge part.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 9/15/05 12:27pm
Msg #65397

Re: Opinions anyone? Great minds think alike

Barb, we are on the same page...I was thinking along the same lines, if I have two *VALID* ID's that SUPPORT each other and adequately identify the person as being one in the same, why not? Especially if she had just gotten married recently. It would make sense in that scenario. My gut feeling is yes, she could be ID'd but I've have to look into it...and just don't want to at this present moment in time (but I will). I would list both ID's in my journal.

I'm interested in the "why not?"

As to opinions...without calling SOS...that's my initial feeling on it.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 9/15/05 12:43pm
Msg #65403

Re: Opinions anyone? Great minds think alike

I have talked to the borrower and the ss. Borrower does know a notary. SS wants me to take the docs back and charge a trip fee. Will I ever see it. Only time will tell.

TitleGal that scenario could possibly be acceptable if marraige licenses were acceptable. But since they are not we are still left with ID's with less instead of the same or more.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 9/15/05 12:47pm
Msg #65406

Re: Opinions anyone? Great minds think alike

Still not there as far as this intellectual discussion is concerned. I'm not concerned with a marriage certificate, I'm concerned with two valid ID's that support each other.

I'm making that phone call. I'll let you know. This is bugging me now.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 9/15/05 12:51pm
Msg #65408

Re: Opinions anyone? Great minds think alike

Looking forward to hear the results of the call.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 9/15/05 2:04pm
Msg #65426

I love being right :)

Okay, granted - opinions from the SOS do vary depending on who's answering the phone. But they said, with the scenario I presented, that I could positively identify the signer and do the certificate.

Here's what I presented to the CA SOS (I don't want to get into SaraBeths details - this was a hypothetical scenario to satisfy my curiosity):

Signer has both a valid CA DL, AND a valid military ID. Her CA DL was issued 4 years ago, and has a military ID issued 2 years ago. Both pictures match. Both signatures match. Physical descriptions match (some military ID's don't have the physical description tho...also a "granted") Both ID's completely support each other with the distinction that that the CA DL has Jane Doe Jones and the military ID has Jane Doe Smith. (exact word for word scenario I presented to SOS). Note - NO reliance on a marriage certificate.

They said I was fine as long as the signatures, photo's and physical descriptions matched - it met their criteria of identification. Interesting...as an aside she also asked me if I, as notary, was convinced this was one-in-the-same person...I've always held that the the state DOES give notaries *some* reliance on their commission status - eg. the requirements for generally being a good guy - background checks, etc.

So - there you go. I have no doubt the Notary-Nazi's will come out in droves, but I'm quoting from the "horses mouth".

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/15/05 2:12pm
Msg #65429

Re: I love being right :)

Interesting! Thanks for checking :-)

I think the key is "was convinced this was one-in-the-same person..." with id to substantiate your decision.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 9/15/05 2:15pm
Msg #65430

and "decision" is key too

We DO have some responsibility to make decisions - and are expected to make them when things get murky. Without being loosey-goosey about my commission, the state has put their trust in me to a certain extent. Just makes me feel even more responsible, rather than less.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 9/15/05 3:47pm
Msg #65454

Re: and "decision" is key too

Then I really think the law should be reworded. As it is written it says "any one of". Maybe tomorow I'll call the SOS and see if I get a different opinion. At this point I'm comfortable with the decision that I made.

Reply by Anonymous on 9/15/05 4:09pm
Msg #65456

YOU might be comfortable with it, but I doubt the SS BRW, &

Lender are. I would have approved the ID in a heart beat, but its your business how you decide to operate and I wish you all the best.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 9/15/05 4:57pm
Msg #65465

Re: and "decision" is key too

And you should be comfortable, SaraBeth. It's your commission, your business, your bond and E&O.....nobody elses.

You can't make all the people happy all the time, and the day there's a hard and fast rule for every single situation as notaries...then robots can do this job.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 9/15/05 8:33pm
Msg #65542

Re: I love being right :)

I completely agree with your approach, even for us here in FL where we have to show ID used in our certificates. I would simply have stated that both ID's (which are acceptable to the state) were used to convincingly provide "reasonable" certainty of the signer's identity.