Posted by Korey Humphreys on 4/15/06 9:17pm
Msg #113816

What would you do? An ID question....

A lady that lives down the street from me, whom I never personally interacted with, asked me to notarize some of her paperwork. I told her fine, and before I went over, I told her to have government issued identification handy. Everything was agreed.

I took a walk to her house this evening and she didn't have a Massachusetts ID, or any ID for that matter. Now, even though she lives up the street from me, I've probably only interacted with her maybe four times in five years. I know her first name, but never knew her last name.

I refused to do the signing and she assured me that I can notarize the documents for her based on 'personal knowledge of identity'. (Which is allowed in Massachusetts). I was uncomfortable with this and told her that she didn't meet the requirements for me to state I knew her personally.

She was upset. I told her that if she finds two credible witnesses, who I know on this street (our street) then I would notarize her documents using the two credible witnesses. Just a few minutes ago she called and rescheduled the signing for Monday morning.

Was I right for doing what I did in your opinion? Or should I have just notarized the documents because I KNOW OF HER?

Was I acting overzealous? Thanks!

Reply by LarryTN on 4/15/06 9:22pm
Msg #113817

I don't think you were acting over zealous...I think you did the right thing! If you didn't know her last name, you didn't know her well enough to notarize her documents without proper ID IMO..

Reply by Dee_Fla on 4/15/06 9:45pm
Msg #113823

I agree with Larry...and Yes you did the right thing! better be safe then sorry.

Reply by PAW on 4/15/06 9:52pm
Msg #113824

You did right. You "don't" know her. Casual acquaintances are not knowing a person. Heck, you didn't even know her last name, how the heck would you be sure who she is/was. EO455 is pretty clear:

"Personal knowledge of identity" shall mean familiarity with an individual resulting from interactions with that individual over a period of time sufficient to ensure beyond doubt that the individual has the identity claimed.

Key phrase is "ensure beyond doubt".

The same holds true for the credible witness: "... on the oath or affirmation of a credible witness unaffected by the document or transaction who is personally known to the notary and who personally knows the individual ...". The witness must also pass the "personally known" test with both the notary and the signer. Again, imo, a casual acquaintance wouldn't cut the mustard.

The preceding is a personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion.

Reply by Korey Humphreys on 4/15/06 10:26pm
Msg #113830

Great! Thanks everyone....

I thought I did right... I don't know why I second guessed myself.

The lady was saying that because I knew of her, all I had to do was look at her incoming mail to prove her last name. Again, this made me uncomfortable because it didn't seem right.

The two credible witnesses are known to me. So I should have no problem notarizing the documents on Monday. Why on earth would somebody nowadays not have access to an ID? Hmmm, anyways ... Thank you all very much for your quick responses.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 4/16/06 6:29am
Msg #113852

You did The Right Thing. The next thing to do ...

... is to stress that she needs to get formal (government) ID. You'll be doing her a favor.

Years ago I was involved in a "discussion" with the police. (I'd been walking, not driving!) I was held until a co-worker brought my driver's license to the police station. They would not release me without a photo ID.

People must understand that 1) If they are hurt, they will need to be identified; B) They can be held by the authorities until proper ID can be found.

If the individual does not drive, they can get a state non-driver's ID.

Reply by cfwMI on 4/16/06 10:25am
Msg #113867

Re: You absolutely did the right thing!!!

Years ago, when my husband was still alive and practicing law, a client(who had become a friend) needed a Quit Claim Deed. Not a problem, we had gone to grandchildren's birthday parties, Christmas parties etc., with him and his wife. WRONG! As it turn out, his wife was not his wife but, his girlfriend who had legally changed her name to his. (He never got a divorce) anyway, my husband did the deed, and I notarized their signature (from personal knowledge) and both my husband and I witnessed.

Well, guess what, his real wife found out, and boy all heck broke out. Thank goodness we didn't get into trouble, but boy did the so called friend and his girlfriend get into trouble.

From that date on, I didn't and don't care if I have known you for years, still want an ID (current one) and you go in my book.

Reply by PAW on 4/16/06 6:59pm
Msg #113910

No reason you would be in trouble

The 'lady' had her name legally changed, so even if you used photo ID it probably would still match the name you knew her by. And, a QuitClaim deed is nothing more than an unwarranted, unsubstantiated statement by the grantor releasing any hypothetical ownership claim to some property.

Reply by Anonymous on 4/16/06 1:20pm
Msg #113891

I would have done exactly as you did. We have to cover ourselves in any situation. Just seeing her and knowing her first name was not enough for you to lose your licensing in the event of legal ramifications. I think you handled it as any real professional should. Business is Business. Everyone should have appropriate ID.

Reply by whitesatin on 4/16/06 5:07pm
Msg #113903

Which Brings Up Another Important Point

Make sure when you confirm ALL of your appointments that you mention to the borrowers that they will need a CURRENT driver's license or State I.D. I always do this. I was surprised this past Friday when I called a borrower to confirm our appointment for tomorrow. I mentioned to her about the current DL or State I.D. and she said she had neither. She happened to mention that she had been out of the country for an extended period of time and just got back. I told her we could use her Passport as I.D.

That experience just made me think, what if I hadn't mentioned about the current I.D. requirement and she didn't have any other form of I.D.? I would have shown up at the appointment and would have had a big problem. Easier to nip these types of issues in the bud before they become problems. Hope this advice helps some of you.

Reply by PAW on 4/16/06 7:18pm
Msg #113911

Re: Which Brings Up Another Important Point

To add to this...

Not only ensure the borrowers have current ID, but make sure the names on the ID are what you expect to be able to properly identify the signer and match the name on the ID to the name on the signature line and notarial certificates.

All too often, the borrowers will have current ID, but not in the name as shown on the documents. Especially with newly married ladies who haven't changed their ID's to match their new names and juniors who may use the Jr. but it isn't on their ID.

These issues have been discussed before, so no need to rehash the old threads about what is and what isn't acceptable. (The "search" button works great.)