Posted by Anonymous on 5/5/06 1:20am
Msg #117899

Previous married name(s) on documents

This may be a dumb question, but how do you satisfy the identification for a person that has a previous (long time ago) married name on a grant deed? I have a lady who has been married three times, and had bought a piece of property during her first marriage. It has been in her name with the first husband for about 50 years. She now is married to her third husband and wants to put the property in their trust. How does she prove to me that she was the name on the deed, and how would the wording be on the deed? AKA or what?

Thanks in advance

Reply by hcampersFL on 5/5/06 7:14am
Msg #117903

This is a good question

I don't think this is a dumb question. I do think that posters may pass it by because you are logged in Anon.

I hope someone with more experience than me will come on and post their thoughts.

This is what I would do: I would call the Title company and then I would call the county recorders office and see what they both had to say about this situation. Then I would post this question here telling what the aforementioned said I should do and try and get opinion's from some of the people I look up to and trust.

I don't know the answer but would love to read it.

Beverly

Reply by SusanOH on 5/5/06 8:34am
Msg #117916

Re: This is a good question

Not knowing what state you are in it's hard to answer, however in my state the statue in OH says that identification has to be made to the notary with satisfactory evidence. I always ask for an unexpired gov't ID, usually a drivers license. But in instances like this I have to use other things and I'm always very careful about what I use as satisfactory evidence. I've discussed this IDing problem with my attorney several times. With that being said I have a similiar situation myself today, the woman's name on the deed is lets say Johnson, thats not really her name, but the documents say Kelly. Johnson was her previous married name, she then got a divorce. This was a long time ago so obviously she no longer has any ID in the name of Johnson. However with my states law being what it is, I will accept seeing her divorce decree when she was Johnson. She has ID in the name of Kelly.

You need to know what your states laws are on IDing someone. I would call your SOS office and go over the situation with them.

I am not an attorney and I am not giving legal advice. Check with your state. What I can do may not be what you can do.

Reply by Lee/AR on 5/5/06 7:47am
Msg #117909

This doesn't sound like a signing question. That 1st husband is still on Title & there are some legal issues to be addressed. She should see a lawyer for this issue.

Reply by PAW on 5/5/06 8:29am
Msg #117914

Sure it's a signing question. We are not to analyze the situation, but notarize the signatures on the docs. The problem is that the name on the docs don't reflect the name on the person's identification. I believe the original poster is in CA, and therefore cannot use a capacity type of certificate that other states allow. So, I don't know what the correct answer is for CA. For FL, it is a no brainer and fully documented in our manual how to handle these types of situations.

Reply by hcampersFL on 5/5/06 9:02am
Msg #117922

PAW

Are you refering to page 32 and 33?
Beverly

Reply by PAW on 5/5/06 10:44am
Msg #117947

Bev

Actually, I was thinking about page 61, in the Q&A where the answer is for the question:

What should I do if a person produces identification with a name different from the name being signed?

Reply by TitleGalCA on 5/5/06 11:17am
Msg #117957

Anon, if the title company had drawn the deed correctly you wouldn't have an ID situation. The grantor should be Jane Doe (current name), who acquired title as Jane Smith (old name). Then you ID your current borrower, Jane Doe, who signs the grant deed. No ID problem because you're not ID'ing the old name.

Reply by Vickie Larkin on 5/5/06 4:44pm
Msg #118023

Thanks TitleGal.CA, Should have listened to you first off, but I had sent an email to my instructor, and she told me to ask a "TitleGal". It is a no brainer, and very simple once I "heard" it explained. DUH! I'm sort of new at all this, and hadn't ran into this situation before. So thank you all for your help and advice. I know where to come if I have anymore problems.

Where in CA are you TitleGal?

Reply by Ndwa on 5/5/06 5:08pm
Msg #118027

Say what????

***I had sent an email to my instructor, and she told me to ask a "TitleGal".***

Should you not ask for a refund from your instructor and send it to TitleGal since s/he has to refer you to TG for a no brainer.

Reply by Vickie Larkin on 5/5/06 12:46pm
Msg #117970

Hey guys, sorry about the anonymous posting. This is the first time I have used this discussion page. Anyway, let me clarify a little. My lady has a deed in her first married name alone. It has been that way for about 50 years. She also has another deed in her new married name, but she kept the first last name as an initial. Why? I have no idea. So she has the first deed, Jane A.Doe, the second deed on another piece of property is Jane D. Smith, and now she uses(and this is on another piece of property) Jane A. Smith. (This is her new married name with her real middle initial. Yes, I am from California also. I think I will take the advice and call the title co. and see how they think it should be handled. If anyone has anymore ideas, or experience in this situation, I would be really like to hear about it. I will post what I find out from the title co.

Thanks for all the advice so far.

Not anonymous Vickie

Reply by Vickie Larkin on 5/5/06 1:06pm
Msg #117973

ok, here's what the title officer told me. A marriage license, or birth certificate(if the document was in her maiden name) along with her now valid id, should satisfy the identification requirement. The deed should be written Jane A. Smith, who originally acquired the property as Jane A. Doe,(or Jane D. Smith, depending on which property we are notarizing, in my case), and then she signs the deed in her now legal name.

This sounds reasonable to me. Any thoughts?

Thanks again,
Vickie

Reply by TitleGalCA on 5/5/06 3:13pm
Msg #118002

That's what I said.

***The deed should be written Jane A. Smith, who originally acquired the property as Jane A. Doe,(or Jane D. Smith, depending on which property we are notarizing, in my case), and then she signs the deed in her now legal name.***

never trust a title officer to tell you what satisfies ID requirements (unless it's me ). That's your job as a notary!

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/5/06 4:08pm
Msg #118015

Re: That's what I said. TitleGal knows. n/m

Reply by Pamela on 5/5/06 5:55pm
Msg #118037

Vickie larkin Re: Previous married name(s) on documents

The title officer is incorrect. A marriage license or birth certificate cannot be used in California for identification as to her maiden name or any other name. However, two Credible Witnesses can be used. Please Refer to the California State 2006 Notary Public Handbook.

Pam

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/5/06 7:45pm
Msg #118058

Pamela...

What I read in this is not that the Title Officer wanted the notary to accept the ID... they were referring to the chain of documentation that would lead to a correct deed being done up so that this woman could sign.

If she provides the satisfactory documents to Title, the deed can be done up to say that Jane Doe, who took title as Jane Smith.... etc.

The notary was never instructed to use those documents to notarize.

Incidentally.. you are in a different state but are you allowed to ID and notarize for Jane Doe on the loan docs and then use credible witnesses to say that she is Jane Smith on a QC... ?????

Reply by Pamela on 5/5/06 10:11pm
Msg #118071

Re: Pamela...

Angelina,

The way I read Vickie Larkin's message: "ok, here's what the title officer told me. A marriage license, or birth certificate (if the document was in her maiden name) along with her now valid id, should satisfy the identification requirement", is that the title company's rep. is stating that it is okay to use a marriage license or birth certificate as a form of identification.

I am still new (have completed a few signings), and so far, have not had any ID issues!

A few weeks ago, I read a thread (# 111045), for which there was a simiiar situation, and it was debatable as to using Credible Witnesses, in a transaction such as this.

The California 2006 Notary Public Handbook states all acceptable forms of identificaton.
It does not exclude using Credible Witnesses as a form of ID in regards to any type of document and/or transaction.

If I am incorrect please let me know.

Also, isn't it the loan officer's and title reps. responsibility to make sure that all names etc. . . are correct "before" and "after" the papers are issued for signing. Meaning that, shouldn't everything be tripled checked etc. . . to ensure that there are no mistakes, "before" the appointment is made, so that the signing can go smoothly?

Pam

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 5/9/06 3:12pm
Msg #118640

Re: Pamela...

Pamela,

Well no matter how you read it... we are in agreement on the ID issue. The Title Co. can use the ID and marriage cert or many other means to satisfy THEIR requirements so that they can draw up the deed. WE need current proper ID and a CORRECT deed to notarize it. (The way that deed was drawn up, it could not be notarized).

Credible Witnesses are the viable means of identification if you do not have proper ID... however.. (check CA law on this) in AZ we cannot ID someone as Jane Smith with a current ID for the loan signing... and then use credible witnesses to ID them as Jane Doe for the Deed signing. Does this make sense? You can't do BOTH. It is either/or... either Jane Doe or Jane Smith.

And yes... it everybody else's job to make sure the paperwork is right... if only it always went that smooth!!!

Sorry for the late post... I just now noticed your reply.

Reply by NCLisa on 5/5/06 5:28pm
Msg #118032

I know in NC the deed would read Jane Doe formerly known as Jane Smith. That way you are notarizing Jane Doe, and the attorney/TC were the ones that determined that Doe & Smith were one and the same.