Posted by Giselle_CA on 9/19/05 4:45pm
Msg #66058

Regarding ID's

I have recently had a borrower's name on documents containing more than what it says on ID and she has no other documents showing the "extra" name. Now, I know I can't notarize the name as it appears on the documents as there is no prove so I did not. She stated the question what if she provides an old DL showing the maiden name and a marriage certificate proving she is one of the same? This is the first time I have to deal with this and would like to know if some would have consider it to be satisfactory evidence. Please any thoughts or comments? TIA.

Reply by Kim_Cali on 9/19/05 6:43pm
Msg #66075

In CA all you need to use are 2 credible witnesses that you can ID....

Reply by B__CA on 9/19/05 7:29pm
Msg #66086

Satisfactory evidence is what is listed under 1185 of the handbook. I agree with the last poster, go with credibile witnesses.

Reply by Giselle_CA on 9/19/05 9:04pm
Msg #66091

Yes, two credible witnesses could be arranged. But, I was not told we needed them at the signing . My question was also because I was curious since Mrs. Borrower mentioned the last notary never questioned the ID's -lack of- the "extra" name. And, she said she presented the same ID I was presented with and the notary acknowledged her name along with the "extra" name.

Reply by Giselle_CA on 9/19/05 9:05pm
Msg #66092

Thank you Both for your replies! n/m

Reply by Dave_CA on 9/19/05 9:51pm
Msg #66099

Not necessarily correct for CA

The CA handbook states that. " A credible witness must know that the signer has no identification and that it would be impractical to obtain the necessary ID. (Civil Code, Section 1185)

Reply by Giselle_CA on 9/19/05 10:14pm
Msg #66105

Re: Not necessarily correct for CA

Regarding your statement the Handbook under section 1185 states:"That is the reasonable belief of the witness that the circumstances of the person making the acknowledgement are such that it would be very difficult or impossible for that person to obtain another form of identification."

As you see, all the credible witness has to have is a "reasonable belief" that it would be difficult or impossible to obtain another ID.

What really makes me doubt if I can do this even with witnesses: "The person making the acknowledgemnt does not possess any of the identification documents named in paragraphs (3) and (4)."

She does have a DL that shows her married name and not her maiden name.

Reply by Kim_Cali on 9/20/05 12:44am
Msg #66119

Re: Not necessarily correct for CA

Yes, it would be difficult for the borrowers to obtain a new DL within the required timeframe and probably impossible! Therefore you may use 2 credible witnesses that you give the oath to stating such a fact.....

I have contacted Sect of State in my beginnings and they have confirmed this situation. Check with them though to set your mind at ease....they make the final decisions as to what is acceptable ~ we just follow the rules.

Reply by CaliNotary on 9/20/05 1:21am
Msg #66123

"My question was also because I was curious since Mrs. Borrower mentioned the last notary never questioned the ID's -lack of- the "extra" name."

I just had the exact same thing happen last wee. Loan docs had married name with the DOT showing the maiden name as the middle name. DL had only maiden name with actual middle name. When I told her the DL wouldn't work she said that she was wondering about that, but the last time they did this the notary told her it was fine because the maiden name was shown on the DOT. Oy.

Her passport showed the correct names so there were no problems getting the signing done.