Posted by las_CA on 5/25/06 3:01pm
Msg #122266

NO proper ID - What would you do

Hi Guys,

I had a signing last weekend that was a bit of a nightmare. My husband went with me luckily and stayed in the car. It was in a very bad neighbourhood in Los Angeles.

Mr BO had an expired DL and no other ID. Called the LO 14x did not pick up the phone. The bo's wife called the LO and he picked up the phone and told me to have him sign the paperwork but no notarize the signatures. Just about 30 seconds later, (after the escrow papers were signed) there is an affidavit to be filled out by the notary stating, (I, _______________, notary public in the State of CA, under the penulty of Perjury, akn. that I identified each borrower with a valid form of identification. blah, blah, blah...

Ofcourse they couldn't find ppl to be credible witnesses. Tried calling the LO about another 6x but no answer. I then went on to have the Mrs sign the papers (actually they were finance/financee) and returned the papers to escrow co. on Monday morning. The LO furious, screaming his head off at me because I didn't have the borrower sign the papers. I explained my situation calmly, told him that if he had picked up his cell when I called at least one of the 20x he could have saved this trouble, but that I couldn't let him sign when I couldn't identify him legally. The DL he had was issued in 1990 and expired in 2004. (the guy works for the UPS.)

He yelled at me and hung up on me and I thought my fees would be a lost cause.. I never imgagined that I would get paid.

He called me again yesterday and apologized for his behaviour and said that they went ahead with the loan (apparently they changed the loan ammt and did it on the borrower only and the BO came to the Escrow Co. and signed the new paperwork and that it should fund today.

I then asked him about my fees, because I felt that I should get paid. I went to the bo's house, had the Mrs sign the paperwork, notarized those that needed to be notarized, returned the papers back to the escrow co. It wasn't my fault that the BO had an expired License, (learned my lesson. In the future say have an id that is VALID and not expired. Didn't mention the not expired part)

He agreed that it was his fault that he didn't asnwer his phone and we agreed to forgive and forget about this miscommunication and move on.. He asked that my invoice be turned over to the escrow company yesterday (which was done already) and said that I will get paid for the full fee... ($200)

Did I do the right thing..? Experienced notaries, can you pls share your opinion on what else I could have done..

Thanks in advance for your responses. i won't be around much today because I'm at work, but will try to read everything in the night.

Las

Reply by Joan_OH on 5/25/06 3:35pm
Msg #122276

A UPS guy with an expired License????? That would be the first thing that would make me uncomfortable. Hopefully, he wasn't a driver.

For all you know, it was his twin brother or a brother that looks very similar to him that his wife recruited (having access to hubby's old ID) to sign documents. Don't think I'm crazy. Something VERY similar happened a couple of months ago to a notary friend of mine.

You were ABSOLUTELY correct. As a matter of fact, I don't know that I would have even had anyone sign anything. How much you want to bet creepo loan officer just added him to your notary certificates? He better pay you.

Joan-OH

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/25/06 3:37pm
Msg #122278

If you cannot positively ID the person then you cannot notaize. Without proper ID you have no idea the person is who they say they are.

Good for you for not notarizing the signature of someone you could not identify.

Reply by Janlee_MI on 5/25/06 4:39pm
Msg #122289

I just don't understand how someone can funtion without ID

Or when you ask for there SS card and they have no idea where it is. DUH.

Reply by CaliNotary on 5/25/06 6:19pm
Msg #122306

Two things.

1. If you think that they simply added the borrower to your notary certificate, you should probably try to get a look at the DOT. If they did change the loan amount then the docs would be completely redrawn so that's probably not an issue. Most likely they have a person who's a notary in their office who will notarize whatever needs to be notarized to push the loan through, laws be damned.

2. This situation wouldn't have been acceptable to use credible witnesses. Brush up on your notary law in that regard because credible witnesses are only to be used in very specific and rare circumstances. They are not just another form of ID if the borrower doesn't happen to have anything else available. And the people on this board who say otherwise (even if they're notary instructors) are 100% wrong when they say so.

Reply by janCA on 5/25/06 6:36pm
Msg #122307

Cali is soooooooo right. CA law is very specific about using CW's, they are not just another form of ID. Please read up on this as it's extremely important.

Reply by Jason on 5/25/06 9:37pm
Msg #122334

CaliNotary is right. Again. n/m

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 5/26/06 1:11am
Msg #122405

This is a perfect example when 2 credible wittnesses in Calif could be used. I question the poster's drivers license for the borrower as I suspect it was issued in 1999 not 1990 and could be a typo, but I could be mistaken.

Quote me the page of our 2006 Calif notary handbook where it says "very specific & rare circumstances" are to be used for (2) Credible witnesses? "

I teach for notaryclasses.com

Reply by CaliNotary on 5/26/06 3:19am
Msg #122415

You're completely wrong Joan

Just as you are every time the subject of credible witnesses comes up.

If you haven't learned how to properly ID somebody by now, and you conveniently ignore responding to the posts that point out your ignorance EVERY SINGLE TIME it's pointed out to you, there's really no point in trying yet again to educate you.

Reply by Anonymous on 5/26/06 4:29am
Msg #122418

Re: You're completely wrong Joan

Here's a link to the CA handbook.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/business/notary/notary_hdbk.pdf

Page 8 of the CA handbook, heading Satifactory Evidence says that you can use:
A Paper Identification Documents
B the oath of a single credible witness
C the oath of two credible witnesses

It then goes on to spell out what these are. It does NOT limit this to specific circumstances.

From my reading of the handbook I would have to agree with Joan. Can you back up what you're saying with a specific section of the handbook?

Reply by Deborah Marble on 5/26/06 4:30am
Msg #122419

Sorry, I meant to post that with my name attached

Here's a link to the CA handbook.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/business/notary/notary_hdbk.pdf

Page 8 of the CA handbook, heading Satifactory Evidence says that you can use:
A Paper Identification Documents
B the oath of a single credible witness
C the oath of two credible witnesses

It then goes on to spell out what these are. It does NOT limit this to specific circumstances.

From my reading of the handbook I would have to agree with Joan. Can you back up what you're saying with a specific section of the handbook?

Reply by CaliNotary on 5/26/06 10:48am
Msg #122468

Re: Sorry, I meant to post that with my name attached

That very page backs up what I'm saying. Look at #3, about 3/4 of the way down the page:

"The credible witness reasonably believes that the circumstances of the signer are such that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of identification".

Now tell me how having an expired driver's license means that it is very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of identification. The circumstances where it would be truly considered very difficult or impossible are rare; most people can simply go to the DMV and easily obtain a driver's license or California ID card.

If they meant that credible witnesses could be used in any old situation, why on earth would they use the specific words "very difficult or impossible"? Isn't that the complete opposite of "any situation"?

Reply by LkArrowhd/CA on 5/25/06 11:07pm
Msg #122367

Re: NO proper ID -I'm sorry but going into a bad area of LA

is not worth, 200, 300, 400, or even 500....your life is greater value.....I assume you know in advance the area your willing to cover and whether it is a dangerous area or not, heck even your hubby could have been hurt. The almighty dollar is not worth placing oneself in harms way.