Posted by kathy/ca on 8/8/06 8:59pm
Msg #137672

How would you ID this person? On DOT, he is listed as "John

Doe Sr. who took title as John Doe" ? Does he ID have to have SR on it? Thank you for your opinions.

Reply by Lee/AR on 8/8/06 9:24pm
Msg #137674

What's his ID say? (He was John Doe until he had a son and became Sr.)

Reply by NCLisa on 8/8/06 9:39pm
Msg #137678

There was a thread on this a few weeks ago. The Jr. & Sr. and not part of a name, they are a suffix like Mr. and Mrs. are prefix's. ID's will not have Jr. or Sr. on them, unless the person has it on the birth cert, or they legally change their names.

Reply by PAW on 8/8/06 10:05pm
Msg #137682

I disagree ...

Most states that I'm aware of include the suffix of Jr., Sr. and lineage numbers (II, III, etc.) to be a part of the persons name. The legality of that is usually found in probate law which has set the precedence of usage in many other areas. Mr., Mrs., etc. are not prefixes but titles and are not considered to be part of the name.

The simple test of names is to remove a piece and see if the remaining is a true equality. For example. If a persons full name is John Quincy Public Sr. and you remove any part of the name, would it still be the same name. So, removing the "Sr." suffix would yield, John Quincy Public and that is not equal to John Quincy Public Sr. Granted it **may** be the same, but one cannot be sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the name was preceded by "Mr.", as in Mr. John Quincy Public Sr. and the title was removed, the name would remain the same.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 8/8/06 10:19pm
Msg #137686

Re: I disagree ...

***The legality of that is usually found in probate law which has set the precedence of usage in many other areas.***

I think you hit the nail on the head, Paul, the "legality" of it.

I had an attorney tell me that if the ID matched the person's name, without the capacity of Jr. or Sr. and everything else fell into line with SOS guidelines (physical description, etc) then I would be remiss as a notary to refuse to notarize his document.

Many "Seniors" started out with a driver license before they had a "Junior", and they refuse to change their name to suit the practice of calling themselves Sr. or Jr.

It is their choice, and at the end of the day, it IS all about the courts.

Reply by NCLisa on 8/8/06 10:38pm
Msg #137691

Re: I disagree ...

Not all states address the issue. And even if they do, state DOT/DMV's are not required to follow legal precedence. They have codes set in place, and that is it. If their code does not address it, then you can't do it. IE: NC Notary handbook states that if a notary stamp has the commission expiration date on it, it is not necessary to fill in the "my commission expires" info, yet if you do not fill that in on a vehicle title in this state, DMV rejects it.

My brother and father are Sr. & Jr. and neither were able to obtain DL's in NC or CA that had those suffixes because it was not on their birth certs. Neither one wants to "legally" add it to their name through the court system either. Another reason not to torture children by giving them the parents name, think of all the hassels all those "George Foreman's" go through.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 8/8/06 10:44pm
Msg #137694

Re: I disagree ...

***My brother and father are Sr. & Jr. and neither were able to obtain DL's in NC or CA that had those suffixes because it was not on their birth certs. Neither one wants to "legally" add it to their name through the court system either***

That is why, IMO, that you can't refuse to notarize a document for someone in that situation, with a big "however"......each notary must take their state's requirements into consideration first and foremost, then if there's still a question, either accept or decline based on your own level of notary experience.

Reply by NCLisa on 8/8/06 10:48pm
Msg #137696

Re: I disagree ...

As a RE Paralegal, we never refused to notarize something because of lack of a suffix. We did not fill in the suffix on the ack either though, it would just read "john doe" instead of "john doe, Jr.". Every attorney I worked for said that was the way to do it.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/8/06 11:03pm
Msg #137699

Re: I disagree ...

Lisa - no doubt in Texas, if this were addressed to the SOS, and if it were such that an attorney had spoken on it, that would be the answer here.




DISCLAIMER: This comes from a person who may be sleepwalking, mainlining morphine, and/or who has broken into the notary's house to play with her computer. In other words, never believe a word I say or take it as legal advice, because I am certainly no attorney.

Reply by MichiganAl on 8/8/06 10:53pm
Msg #137697

I don't agree PAW

In the case of a Sr., common sense should prevail. Sr. is not a given name. Sr. isn't expected to go out and get a new i.d. because he had a kid. Jr., I, II, etc...yeah that's part of their name. That's the name they were given at birth. But not in the case of senior. If his i.d. says John Smith, then he is the Sr. Yes, John Quincy Public is John Quincy Public Sr. because if he were anything other than the senior, his suffix would be there as his given name. First and last name matches, address matches, picture matches, signature matches, good to go.

Reply by PAW on 8/9/06 8:36am
Msg #137735

Re: I don't agree PAW

I understand what your saying and I agree to the premise. However, if the document clearly states "SR", which is a suffix to a name and by definition offered by the courts, the notary is obligated to "satisfactorily identify the signer as John Doe Sr". Method of identification is according to the statutes, some of which are very specific and some are very vague.

The whole point of the identification process is to be reasonably ensured that the signer of the document is the person named in the document. Florida statutes states: "A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document unless he or she personally knows, or has satisfactory evidence, that the person whose signature is to be notarized is the individual who is described in and who is executing the instrument. A notary public shall certify in the certificate of acknowledgment or jurat the type of identification, either based on personal knowledge or other form of identification, upon which the notary public is relying." The key words are "satisfactory evidence". So, even if the required form of ID (e.g. driver's license) may not say SR, if there is supporting evidence to convince the notary public that the person is in fact the "senior" and not a "junior" (which many people do not have on their birth certificates nor licenses), then the intent of the statute has been met.

Reply by MelissaCT on 8/8/06 11:04pm
Msg #137700

If this person is now known as Jonh Doe Sr as opposed to the way he "took title" as simply John Doe then his ID should match vesting. Otherwise, he could stay on title as simply John Doe...no?

Reply by PAW on 8/8/06 9:29pm
Msg #137676

Re: How would you ID this person?

The person in front of you needs to be "John Doe, Sr." Therefore, his ID needs to match that name. His representative capacity is "who took title as John Doe", which you cannot use in your certificate in CA.

So to answer your question... yes.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/8/06 9:38pm
Msg #137677

kathy/ca - How long have you been a notary public? If I am not mistaken, you are kwink from the other site who started being a signing agent around the same time I did. At this point, surely you have "got it" on your notary rules of how to ID a person.

I know, I know... you just wanted everyone's opinion.

Everyone's opinion does not count. Read your handbook.

Reply by kathy/ca on 8/8/06 10:59pm
Msg #137698

The queston was asked because of the way the name is listed

"John Doe SR who took title as John Doe". The wording "who took title as", was what led to the question in that title was being taken in a name without the SR.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/8/06 11:06pm
Msg #137701

Re: The queston was asked because of the way the name is listed

**Thank you for your opinions. **

Everyone's opinion doesn't count.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 8/8/06 11:10pm
Msg #137703

Kathy

"Who took title as" is simply a way of clarifying the title holder of the property who may have originally acquired it as another. It is sort of a quick fix, without the hassle of recording a deed to perfect title.

The lender and the title company agree on this, and it is quite common.

It's not your issue as a notary. You only ID the first part of the statement...."John Doe Sr. who took title as...." You're only concerned with John Doe Sr. You will see that the grantor signature line on the deed is the same as the first party mentioned in the sentence...."John Doe Sr".

Hope that helps.

Reply by kathy/ca on 8/9/06 9:42am
Msg #137749

Oh really? Then why is it that out of a post of 31 replies,

there are so many differing "opinions"? This is a controversial issue and because I asked for "opinions" is no reason to belittle me.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/9/06 9:54am
Msg #137753

Re: Oh really? That's right. Opinions do not matter.

Kathy - the point is:

1) You have been doing this as long as I have. Surely by now you have realized how to ID someone.

2) It does not matter one iota what Paul thinks, or Titlegal thinks or what I think about how to ID someone. While they are very astute posters. You are responsible for knowing your notary law. You refer back to your handbook to get a definitive answer. Period.

3) An aside, you are a regular reader. This is discussed all the time and the same people have the same opinions consistently.

4) You *choose* to become belittled. No one can belittle you but you.

5) Go back to Pamela's recent post on the question of opinions on her website. You have a selective and short memory. Pamela asked for opinions on matter for which opinions count. Yours was not very kind. But, if you were being honest when you attempted to belittle her, that's fine. It was your opinion. Pamela did not allow you to belittle her, by the way. However, ID in CA is set by law. Opinions are like you-know-whats in this particular situation. Your handbook is what counts. Read it.

Reply by kathy/ca on 8/9/06 10:06am
Msg #137759

The point is, I expressed my opinion like everyone here

has expressed their opinion & it isnt up to anyone else what opinions should be asked for or not.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/9/06 10:09am
Msg #137760

Re: The point is, I expressed my opinion like everyone here

**it isnt up to anyone else what opinions should be asked for or not. **

Okay, here's my opinion.

My *opnion* is that you write to your SOS and ask them:

Should I follow the notary rules in my handbook in order to ID someone, or should I ask for opinions on Notaryrotary.com?

Reply by kathy/ca on 8/9/06 10:12am
Msg #137762

Dont have time to debate such trivia, I have appointments to

get to.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/9/06 10:16am
Msg #137763

Re: Dont have time to debate such trivia, I have appointments to

Trivia? Okay, I gotcha. Notary law is trivia and thus your attitude and lack of learning it.

Appointments? Okay. I thought you worked at a title company full time right now. My mistake.

Again...you have been in this arena as long as I have. Longer by some of your posted remarks on being in the title company field for 20 years or more.

All I am saying is that the ID requirements are in your notary rules.

Reply by kathy/ca on 8/9/06 10:21am
Msg #137764

Nope, not me! Gotta run! Bye! n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/9/06 10:29am
Msg #137766

Re: Dont have time to debate such trivia, I have appointments to

Okay - so you haven't been doing this long but you are a notary commissioned by California law. This part of my post still stands:


Trivia? Okay, I gotcha. Notary law is trivia and thus your attitude and lack of learning it. All I am saying is that the ID requirements are in your notary rules.


And, to that I would add, you are going out to do signings and you still do not understand how to ID your signer.

Determining this is not by opinion, in my humble opinion, of course!

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 8/8/06 11:51pm
Msg #137710

The way that I see it may be a bit different.

Illinois only requires that we ID a person based on an
"identification document." Kind of leaves it up to us.
LOs do not think about NP ID problems when they take an app.
In a perfect world they would check this so that they do not
have the issue at closing. I would imagine that once
they have a closing fall out of bed due to an ID issue,
they will anticipate the problem in the future.
There is also the issue of how the
person took title. As I understand it , the name on MTG/DOT should match
up to the name on the deed to avoid a title exception. (Do you agree, TG?)
Also raises the question
as to how they were IDed when they signed the MTG at the time
of purchase. May people with common names will go the full nine
yards on the deed when they purchase so a to differentiate themselves
(eg. John William Smith III while their DL says John W. Smith. )
Also some states have a limit on how many characters will fit on a DL .
If you have a DL issue, ask if they have a passport. This will frequently
have the "full name" I have a middle name comparable to
"Rumplestiltskin" but have the full thing on my passport and VA Id card.
BTW a VA id card may be a good ID if people have them. It is issued by
a government agency and has a photo and SS #
I had to jump through a lot more hoops to get it issued than I did to get
my DL.
When confronted with this problem, I also check to see if this
is the person who the lender intends as the bwr. Does age on
ID and appearance match up to age on 1003?
You are also in their home. Is bwr in wedding pictures on wall,
do kids call him "daddy" etc.
Of course, the bottom line is your state's reqmts together with
the lender's Patriot Act reqmts.

Reply by Gary_CA on 8/9/06 12:23am
Msg #137718

Questions not answers...

I've posted other places that I'm brand new... no commission yet...so this is definitely a question not an opinion...

In my CA class and test we were told "less but not more" If the DL says John Quincy Adams he can sign John Q. Adams, no problem. But if the DL says John Q. Adams, he can't sign John Quincy Adams... right??? If "Jr." is really part of the name, wouldn't the same thing apply??? But I understand the arguments on both sides of whether it's part of the name or an appendage.

I guess if it came right down to it I'd make him bring me his mommy (or other credible wittness with adequate ID)? No??

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 8/9/06 12:25am
Msg #137719

His I.D. must have the Sr on it

I teach for notaryclasses.com and I assure all Calif notaries that if the document to be notarized has John Q Smith (Sr) on it: The I.D. must include the (Sr.)

Calif only allows 6 acceptable identification documents: Any one of the following, as long as the document is current or has been issued within 5 years and contains a photograph and description of the person named on it, is signed by the person, and must bear a serial or other identifing number.

1. ID card or Drivers license from Ca or any of the other 49 states
2. An ID card issued by any branch of the military
3. U.S. Passport
4. Passport issued by a foreign goverment
5. Canada & Mexico drivers license
6. Inmate ID card used while in jail

If he doesn't have Sr on his ID on one of the above; use 2 credible Witnesses in Ca.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 8/9/06 12:35am
Msg #137720

It is all tht I can do to keep track of Illinois, Joan, but.

US Passport and Mil ID do not have any phyical description,
nor a signature as I recall.
That said, I use them all of the time for ID.

Reply by Gary_CA on 8/9/06 1:32am
Msg #137723

Re: It is all tht I can do to keep track of Illinois, Joan,

Passport has a signature but no description...

In the CA law a CA Driver's License or a US Passport are acceptable without qualification... ID's listed in the next paragraph (including Military ID's) are required to have a photograph, descroption, signature and number.

Here's the good news, at least in CA... two little paragraphs at the end...

<i>An officer who has taken an acknowledgment pursuant to this section shall be presumed to have operated in accordance with the provision of law.

Any party who files an action for damages based on the failure of the officer to establish the proper identity of the person makeing the acknowledgment shall have the burden of proof in establishing the negligence or misconduct of the officer.</i>

It would seem to me that allowing the use of an ID that accurately described the color of his eyes and hair, height of his head and weight of his butt, with a photo and a signature, but which was sans an "S" an "r" and a "." could hardly be proven negligence or misconduct.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/9/06 5:19am
Msg #137729

Re: It is all tht I can do to keep track of Illinois, Joan,

Gary - so you have the ID, it describes the guy head-to-toe, you know it's his ID w/out a doubt. It's just missing those two little letters to his NAME - the "S" and the "r".

Tell me - how is it confirming he is NOT "Jr" instead?

The ID confirms "Joe Blow"
You notarize, thereby confirming he is "Joe Blow, Sr."
You ASSUME he is Sr, and NOT Jr.
To confirm ID on an assumption - couldn't that be potentially negligent?

Reply by Gary_CA on 8/9/06 8:46am
Msg #137736

Re: It is all tht I can do to keep track of Illinois, Joan,

Aargh... indeed if it is part of the name AND if you have him sign it with Sr. without ID to that effect...

So you're gonna have to have him sign it "just like it is on your driver's license"...but there seem to be pretty intellegent, very experienced folks who ignore "Sr." the way they might ignore "Mr."

We're definitely into the realm of my ignorance... glad to be arguing this before it happens.

I'm working with a client "Joe" at the moment (as a Realtor) he's 22. His dad's named Joe. His 2 year old son (cute little fart) is named Joe. So tell me, is he Joe Sr. or is he Joe Jr. ??? I haven't checked yet, he signed the contract and the 92 disclosures, addendai, and other miscellaneous stuff as Joe Blow II. Makes him proud. But I'm guessing that's not on his DL, especially if it happens to be the same one he got at 16...

Now that I've read all this mess we're gonna "nip it in the bud"... I'll be checking this week and docs are gonna look like his DL... why ask for headaches?

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 8/9/06 9:03am
Msg #137740

Re: It is all tht I can do to keep track of Illinois, Joan,

Gary, do you have personal knowledge of him? Or is this just a client?

Reply by Gary_CA on 8/9/06 9:16am
Msg #137741

Re: It is all tht I can do to keep track of Illinois, Joan,

Just a client... and I'm just a Realtor, so I'll not be doing the signing.

But if the signing goes sideways over a couple letters guess who doesn't get a commission (the kind you take to Vegas)???

That would not make me a happy camper.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/9/06 10:04am
Msg #137758

OT Re: It is all tht I can do - GaryCA - OT

Gary - wasn't it you who suggested peanut butter and applesauce on pancakes? I am using your "recipe" on English muffins. Excellent suggestion.

Reply by Gary_CA on 8/9/06 10:40am
Msg #137773

Re: OT Re: It is all tht I can do - GaryCA - OT

Yep... and that's much more appealing than Jr. and Sr. and all.

Thanks... I've never done it on English Muffins.

Reply by Tina_MA on 8/9/06 10:55am
Msg #137785

Re: OT Re: It is all that I can do - GaryCA - OT

When my siblings and I were young, my mother had a couple of "special" dinners that we got to have on Friday nights.

One of the "special" dinners was having whole wheat toast with peanut-butter, a slice of cheese, and hot applesauce or apple-butter over it (which would melt the cheese). Mmmm, that's some good eatin'!

I don't remember what my mother called it, but we loved it. Now that I'm older I realize it's "special" in that she didn't need to cook.

Our other "special" dinner was fruit salad and popcorn. Which we kids also loved.

Our "special" breakfast was my father making fried dough from frozen bread dough on Sunday mornings.

Needless to say, we were not acquainted with Julia Child. LOL

Reply by Gary_CA on 8/9/06 1:22am
Msg #137722

Time out Joan

Now you got me thinkin'...so I pulled out my handy dandy notary handbook and this is what I found...

Nothing about the name on the ID and "less but not more" or any of that stuff taught in my class or in your post above... but...

One of the things a credible wittness must swear is that the "person making the acknowledgment does not possess any of the identification documents named in paragraphs 3 & 4." (a drivers license...etc. etc.)

But obviously Mr. John Doe Sr. has a DL... Now what?

Reply by MichiganAl on 8/9/06 2:21am
Msg #137725

Joan, nothing against your expertise in the field

But we see misinformed, misguided, ill-prepared, and ill-advised pupils coming out of California notary classes by the butt load on a daily basis. The fact that you "teach for notaryclasses.com" doesn't "assure" anyone of anything.

Reply by LkArrowhd/CA on 8/9/06 10:54am
Msg #137784

Re: His I.D. must have the Sr on it-Joan just because you

say you teach at yadda yadda yadda doesn't make it so....pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeee. Lordy woman bring yourself down off the pedestal......enter the real world.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/9/06 4:56am
Msg #137728

First of all, there's a reason that the DOT is being vested this way - someone (either the borrower or the lender) is SPECIFICALLY wanting John Doe to be vested WITH the "Sr." The list of possible reasons illustrates the need to SPECIFICALLY identify this signer as "John Doe, Sr."

The borrower may be having issues with Jr.'s credit bleeding onto his own credit file.
The borrower may have myriad problems with being potentially mistaken for Jr., or his belongings being potentially mistaken for Jr.'s belongings/property/etc.
The borrower may be fed up with dealing with these Sr/Jr issues, and doesn't want anything left to chance.
The lender may have underwritten this using other documentation that all specifies "Sr.", and there may be potentially significant issues with an association to the public file on the "Jr."
As anyone in lending will attest to - the Jr/Sr scenario is RIPE for fraud, and full of headaches due to 'crossed' info on credit reports and public records.

Ok - considering all the above ... now this goes out to the SA to be consumated. This is where the absolute verification of this person's identity should be a given - but from the responses in this thread, it appears it's not.

Experience is usually the best teacher, especially first-hand - geez, I don't mean that the way it might sound, what I mean is that it does change your perception. Ever since I was in a serious car accident, I choose what car I buy by the safety ratings/features. I once saw a dog die from eatting a bone - I NEVER give my dog bones. That's what I mean. I've SEEN fraud attempted (always by the Jr, but that's just what I personally saw) more times than I can count. Knowing stuff can possibly happen, and SEEING it happen over and over can result in two different perspectives.

If John Doe Sr. can't provide me with acceptable (per MI statute - gov't issued) ID, he will NOT be verified by ME to be John Doe, Sr. Since the most common form of ID used is the D/L - MI law requires the SOS to verify and use a person's "full, legal name" on there. THAT is THEIR responsibility, and when I use that item to verify a person's ID - THAT is the identity I can verify. Period. In MI, a credible witness must be mutually known by both the signer and the notary, so that's a rarity.

Lastly - a reminder that you, alone, are being USED to confirm identity and those lenders, agents, brokers ... all those 'buddies' you're out there trying to bend and accomodate are NOT going to stand there holding your hand when the party's over. In MI, "common sense" identifying isn't (IMHO) legally sound. It's clear, definitive, and fundamental.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 8/9/06 8:35am
Msg #137734

Re: How would you ID this person? On DOT, he is listed as "J

Have I just not had enough coffee this morning. As a notary public my concern is what name is typed under the signature line and how the signer signs it. If there's a Sr in the signature and not on the id then I can't notarize.

Vesting doesn't mean diddly to me. In Renee's example if the man is that sick of issues that have been caused by the names then he needs to peddle his rump to the dmv and get a dl with Sr on it. It's not very difficult or extremely impossible to do and he already has id with Sr so credible witnesses are a no go miss instructor Joan. Unfortunately the lo's don't know notarial law and it is us that has to explain this to borrower and lo. But that's our job. (renee I know we agree, I'm addressing the issue, not you)

Reply by MelissaCT on 8/9/06 8:59am
Msg #137739

Effectively change titled name

Since he "took title as" John Doe and is now effectively changing his name to John Doe Sr, he better have ID stating John Doe Sr., much the way an unmarried woman who took title & has since married would be identified by her married name (Jane Smith who took title as Jane Doe).

I see no differentiation in ID-ing these 2 occurrences. Would you accept ID in married name & have her sign in maiden name?

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/9/06 5:05pm
Msg #137903

Re: agreed!! =) n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 8/9/06 11:48am
Msg #137813

Renee,I don't think I've ever disagreed with you on anything

I trust your knowledge (so much so that I'm going to be going on a two week vacation in September and I'd like to refer my calls to you. Whole other conversation, but you'll be hearing from me). But on this, I do not agree. Michigan statute says "satisfactory evidence." Am I more alert and aware in a jr/sr situation? Yes, for all the reasons you stated. But if everything else matches, photo, address, signature, then I'm more than satisfied. Again, jr's i.d. would say jr. because that is his given name. IMO, sr's "legal name" doesn't change because he has a kid.

Reply by MelissaCT on 8/9/06 5:25pm
Msg #137907

Re: Renee,I don't think I've ever disagreed with you on anything

The name doesn't change just because he has a kid. When it does (or should) change is when the vesting on title changes in name (from John Doe to John Doe Sr) John Doe Sr is legally different than John Doe. It would be similar to John Doe vs John A Doe -- are they the same person? Notary law contends that John A Doe is not necessarily John Doe, thus John Doe Sr is not necessarily John Doe.

Just my analysis & strictly my opinion.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/9/06 9:28pm
Msg #137937

Re: Renee,I don't think I've ever disagreed with you on anything

I agree with you and Renee - who made some excellent points. While the CA notary handbook doesn't go into detail in interpreting how "satisfactory evidence" should read exactly, it seems to me to be important to keep in mind areas where fraud is most likely to occur. And that would include within families, sadly. If ID does not specify, how are we to know we aren't sitting in front of a John Doe who is really "Jr." and who didn't put that on this ID?

Using common sense, if the name itself matches, than the only issue is whether or not we have a Sr. or Jr. in front of us (or III, etc.). However, that is not an issue to be taken lightly.
Some might consider personally meeting "Jr." in the home and checking *his* ID for "Jr", as proof that the father is "Sr.", especially if the father has other items (commonly used by lenders as seconday ID for Patriot Act) with Sr. after his name. I'd have a hard time arguing with that.

Reply by Blueink_CA on 8/9/06 11:44pm
Msg #137949

Janet, I agree with your post

Whenever I have a case of "name not matching name exactly on ID" I have a decision to make. Do I notarize this person as being >>>>>>>. I know that I will be the one responsible if an ID issue comes up, so I use common sense when determining my certainty of the signer. I have seen Michelle on docs, and Michele on DL with Michelle being the correct name. If I'm sitting in Horace Smith's home, with Agathy Smith, and they're both in their 80's, am I going to question the Sr. on the docs? I am a notary public, not a Notary Nazi (No loan for you!!) I usually don't respond to posts dealing with ID because of the controversy it causes (except for post 129765).

Reply by Gary_CA on 8/9/06 9:42am
Msg #137748

NotRot worth every penny

I'm the newest of newbies but I gotta say "thanks"

Just this thread alone is gonna save me a headache and a half on my next escrow...and it might save my butt one day when I finally get going doing signings.

That's worth the whole membership fee right there... Uh, wait a minute, the sight is FREE, how cool is that.

(Yes I'll ante up for a premo deal soon, right after I pay for the class, and the application, the bond, the training manual, the fingerprints, the insurance, the stamp, the journal . . .)

Reply by TitleGalCA on 8/9/06 11:19am
Msg #137789

Satisfactory Evidence

The CA handbook reads: "Satisfactory Evidence" means the ABSENSE of any information, evidence or other circumstances which would lead a REASONABLE person to believe that the individual is not the individual he or she claims to be AND (either) A) Paper identification or the oath of credible witness.

Note "absense" and "reasonable". I'm NOT going to refuse to notarize someones documents because he didn't trot on down to the DMV and change his name to suit me and and my ultra-strict notary rules.

I will say the only point anyone made here in this thread that made me pause a moment was Renee's point about the fraud potential of a Junior trying to get Daddy's credit or money. That is a possibility. Yet...wouldn't it also be clear that a 35-40 yr old "Senior" might raise an eyebrow of a smart notary??

Reply by ewing2surf on 8/9/06 11:26am
Msg #137794

Are notaries required to determine SUFFIX?

A suffix is something added at the end of a word that conditions its usage or meaning.
Jr. / SR. / II / III is referred to as the SUFFIX.

Most new parents overlook suffix when completeing and application for Birth Certificate.
In California to add a Suffix to an issued birth certificate you must file a name change form. As follows...

How do I change my name?

To change your name, you will need some or all of these forms:

Form NC-100 Petition for Name Change
Form NC-110 Attachment to NC-100 or NC-200
Form NC-120 Order to Show Cause for Change of Name
Form NC-130 Decree Changing Name
Form CM-010 Civil Cover Sheet
Form PB-4010 CLETS Background Information Form (This is a local form.)
certificate

Once change the applicant can submit the amended Birth Certificate to the DMV for a new licence/ID

Are notaries required to determine SUFFIX?

Reply by NCLisa on 8/9/06 11:34am
Msg #137800

2 Answers for you..

This is the email that I keep getting from the NC SOS everytime I have asked about this. They must only hire the brain dead:

If you have a suffix in your name Jr. Or Sr. please enter it on the
notary application. We have a space for it on our application. This
will help us to identify who the notary is, the father or son or the II
or III.

Thanks, Kay


Now, I'm sitting in the office of the attorney I work for part time, and we just had this discussion again. She said that even though their is a chance for mortgage fraud due to the suffix issue, that because the suffix almost never shows up on "legal id" that she has notarizes the name, and not the suffix on the acks. That she has to rely on satisfactory evidence, and to her, the name alone is satisfactory evidence.

Reply by MichiganAl on 8/9/06 12:00pm
Msg #137823

I'm glad we've got an attorney's input on this

And I completely agree.

Reply by SharonMN on 8/9/06 1:56pm
Msg #137847

Simplest way to solve

It's annoying that the notary is always struggling to solve ID issues when it is the easiest thing in the world for the drafter to change the name on the document! In the example given, it seems like the best thing would be to draw up the documents (and sign and notarize) in name John Doe, and add "John Doe, Sr." to the name and signature affidavit so we all know it was him and not his son.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/9/06 4:49pm
Msg #137898

Re:love a good debate =)

Exactly as I was saying ... I think =O

You said:
"... She said that even though their is a chance for mortgage fraud due to the suffix issue, that because the suffix almost never shows up on "legal id" that she has notarizes the name, and not the suffix on the acks."

She notarizes the name AND NOT THE SUFFIX. This is what I would do, if the ID did not contain the suffix (which btw IMHO - Joe, your outline only FURTHER illustrates that the gov't DOES consider the suffix a part of the NAME).

I love a good, intelligent debate =) I don't much care for an argument though, especially one based on semantics. This quote from the atty may be just that - it could possibly mean she is STATING in her ack. that she's notarizing "Joe Blow Sr." but that the actual proof of his BEING Sr. is all in her assumptions. In that case ... I disagree absolutely.

And Alex - ready? Set ... go! Ok ... MI does NOT allow the notary to rely on their own satisfaction of evidence. The statute defines that "satisfactory evidence" to be:

A notary public has satisfactory evidence that a person is the person whose signature is on a record if that person is any of the following:

(a) Personally known to the notary public.

(b) Identified upon the oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally known by the notary public and who personally knows the person.

(c) Identified on the basis of a current license, identification card, or record issued by a federal or state government that contains the person's photograph and signature.

** Alex, I'm flattered and consider it an honor =)

Reply by MichiganAl on 8/9/06 11:37pm
Msg #137948

Renee, we can break down "basis of a current license"

But I've had enough of this topic for one day. We'll pick this up when I call you later this month, and you can post your apology then!

Reply by Becca_FL on 8/9/06 10:12pm
Msg #137943

All I can say is...

thank goodness Florida has provisions for dealing with name situations. Last night, I had a borrower with FLDL in the name of Juan Azavido (fake name, don't worry) The junk docs were in J Juan Azvido and he had to sign the mtg. as Jaun A.. & J Juan A... Florida is quite nice to us Notaries when we run into this situation. All I do is have him sign both ways and change my cert to say:

By: Juan Azavido who represented to me that he is also known as J. Jaun Azavido and produced FLDL in the name of Jaun Azavido.

Done! A little more writing, but it's correct in Florida and accepted by the out of state TCs when accompanied with a copy of a page out of the Florida manual.