Posted by Larry/Ca on 11/30/06 2:52pm
Msg #163036
Interesting answer from Ca SOS
Called the SOS for an answer about the use of credible witnesses. Asked if I could use credible witness when drivers license had borrowers name as John and documents name was Jhonny. I wondered because one of ther conditions in the use of credible witnessess is that the signer DOES NOT POSSESS ACCEPTIBLE ID. Well he did but it did not contain enough, John not Johnny. I have always used credible witnesses to complete signings in this situation but have questioned this lately because I now think that the condition that the signer did not posses acceptible ID to mean that they did not physically possess it, not that it was not acceptible because of wrong name. The strange answer was that the SOS told me that I could ID the signer with less than the name on the document as long as there was a physical description on the ID that matched. HUMMMM. I've always understood that to be wrong. Furthermore, she said that if I would not do the signing that the signer could find a notary that would!!! HUMMM. If your in California what is your take on these answers from the SOS.
| Reply by Calnotary on 11/30/06 3:20pm
Msg #163037
I prefer to do those question via e mail so I have something in writing. So later on they wont say, "NO I didnt say that"
| Reply by Glenn Strickler on 11/30/06 5:52pm
Msg #163065
I have sent emails in the past that have gone unanswered. Over the phone, the SOS's office will also tell you that it is ok to use a credible witness on loan docs when section 326 of the Patriots act requires government issued ID.
I too would get any answer from the SOS in writing as the phone info, in my opinion, is not always accurate.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 11/30/06 4:34pm
Msg #163054
Credible witness
** "I have always used credible witnesses to complete signings in this situation" **
I always thought that finding a credible identifying witness would be kind of tough, unless you live in a small town. My understanding was that a credible identifying witness had to personally know the signer AND be personally known by the notary. NY law doesn't address this, so I'm going by the NNA's definition, which talks about a "chain of personal knowledge" - do some states have a definition of credible identifying witness that differs?
| Reply by Larry/Ca on 11/30/06 5:33pm
Msg #163062
Re: Credible witness
In California the Notary doesn't need to personally know the credible witnesses but they must know the signer and must have satisfactory evidence of identification, sworn that they know the signer they sign your journal. You need two of them.
Larry
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 11/30/06 7:44pm
Msg #163084
Re: Credible witness
OK, that makes sense.... what do you do in that case, grab a couple of neighbors?
NY law is fuzzy on ID - we're required to obtain "satisfactory evidence" of ID, but what that means is not defined so I've been pretty much relying on NNA guidelines. We're also not required to keep a journal, but I'm rethinking this and realizing that a journal is probably a good idea, especially in situations like this.
We have a case locally involving mortgage fraud, and the notary is being sued because she didn't check ID properly. I was recently at a friend's loan signing where the notary blew through the docs - applying signature and seal BEFORE presenting the docs - and then remembered on the way out to ask for ID... Scary stuff.
| Reply by Larry/Ca on 11/30/06 7:59pm
Msg #163092
Yes Mike, most of the time .....
a couple of neighbors saves the signing. I am still rethinking the use of these when the signer actually has an ID but without enough in the printer name to be used to notarize the name on the documents. I got such a strange answer from the SOS is why I posted here.
Larry
| Reply by Gary_CA on 12/1/06 12:46pm
Msg #163263
HEY MIKE COFFEE's READY
Wake up and smell it bud...
About a notary journal and the modern world of digital printers and photoshop and all that...
If you don't have a journal, how can you answer a question about ID or even whether you put your stamp on that document the judge is asking you about?????
I can't imagine notarizing without a journal.
I understand that if there's no law, it's not a legal or even ethics question... but it's a train wreck waiting to happen.
>>but I'm rethinking this and realizing that a journal is probably a good idea, especially in situations like this.<<
It takes about two extra minutes... and I can't think of a situation where it wouldn't be good to have a journal entry.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/1/06 1:24pm
Msg #163274
Re: HEY MIKE COFFEE's READY
Point taken - I'm going to start using a journal.
| Reply by kathy/ca on 11/30/06 8:06pm
Msg #163093
Larry, that is the same answer I got a couple months ago
when I called the SOS and asked the same queston. "As long as the physical description and the photo matches and (I) feel reasonably sure that they are one and the same person", go ahead........if the name is "slightly" more or different on the docs than on the ID.
| Reply by SueW/Tn on 11/30/06 8:14pm
Msg #163096
This whole ID thing goes against what I was taught
The ID is either correct and matches OR there's no signing going on. Lemme explain....talked with some folks the other night...father and son have same first name, different middle. Son signed loan docs in another state, they played games with middle initial...parents had to jump through hoops to clean up the mess. CW's were used, of COURSE this was him and of COURSE the picture and physical description matched! Ugh!
| Reply by Larry/Ca on 11/30/06 8:37pm
Msg #163100
I believe that the person....
at the SOS office was simply wrong. Although, the first person I talked to refered me to the 'expert' on the subject. I sure wish that I had her instructions to me in writing as it is maddening to get such a flippant answer to a serious concern of mine with regards to Notary Law.
| Reply by Kate/CA on 11/30/06 9:13pm
Msg #163105
Re: I believe that the person....
If you don't mind me asking, who was the expert this time?
| Reply by kathy/ca on 11/30/06 8:58pm
Msg #163101
Sue, I'm confused. Are you saying father and son have the
same physical description (which I find hard to believe), and what about the difference in age? Was the son trying to pose as the father? I think we need more info to make sense of this.
| Reply by SueW/Tn on 12/1/06 1:02am
Msg #163179
Kathy, as near as the Mom and Dad can figure out...
the only place in the package that showed the father's BD was on the 1003. The son used his DL which of course had his pic on it. They prosecuted the son and of course won the case and got their credit cleaned up. How often do you check the BD on the 1003 against the DL? Docs showed middle initial, didn't match DL and kid BS'd his way past the SA with "credible witnesses" and the SA never entered them into her log. Sloppy work. My name is the same as my mom's, unless someone knew the age of the person they were SUPPOSE to be ID'ing, I reckon I could do the same thing.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/30/06 8:59pm
Msg #163102
Re: Larry, that is the same answer I got a couple months ago
**"As long as the physical description and the photo matches and (I) feel reasonably sure that they are one and the same person", go ahead........if the name is "slightly" more or different on the docs than on the ID.**
And, that is the correct answer as far as I am concerned.
The XXX Notary Manufaturing Plant has to have something to teach people (classes=$$) so they taught us how to split hairs on ID initials.
It's either the right person, or it isn't. Use gov't issued ID to make that conclusion and I am good to go.
All they need to know is that the person signing the documents is the INTENDED person to be signing the documents IN TEXAS. When they applied for the loan they saw the ID back at the lender's office. The lender accepted it. If they are the person who is supposed to be signing the documents, then that's all there is to it.
How the property is vested has nothing to do with the way the drivers license does or does not spell out the middle name, or has a middle name where a maiden name might be.
What you need to watch for is Jr. trying to sign off for dead dad. Or, for daughter trying to forge mom's name. I don't run into a lot of that because we don't have Cash outs except in a title company or an attorney's office...or a lender branch. It takes a lot of b#lls to try to pull that off in a place other than a home.
| Reply by Larry/Ca on 11/30/06 9:21pm
Msg #163107
Brenda, in Ca you cannot......
notarize a signature that contains more than is shown on the ID. This is a question on the State Notary Exam and the correct answer is that you cannot do it, that is, if you are using this identification as satisfactory evidence. Now, using credible witnesses seems to be a way to legally perform the notarization but I still wonder if they do possess an lD that one of the conditions permitting you to use credible witnesses would not be met. Namely, that they do NOT possess such identification. That was my original question to the SOS.
| Reply by TitleGalCA on 11/30/06 9:41pm
Msg #163113
Re: Brenda, in Ca you cannot......
***Now, using credible witnesses seems to be a way to legally perform the notarization but I still wonder if they do possess an lD that one of the conditions permitting you to use credible witnesses would not be met.***
Maybe, but what if they don't? this is your problem Larry, in accepting the CW exception in notarizations "that it is "impossible" for them to obtain ID". (not quoted as to the specific code).
THAT is the reason why that CA notaries CANNOT accept Credible Witness' in most all situations.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/30/06 9:49pm
Msg #163117
Re: Brenda, in Ca you cannot......
**Brenda, in Ca you cannot notarize a signature that contains more than is shown on the ID.This is a question on the State Notary Exam and the correct answer is that you cannot do it, that is, if you are using this identification as satisfactory evidence.**
Larry, I am not from CA, obviously. However, I have been corrected by a longtime notary on what you just said. I had read so much about it, I took it to be the absolute truth.
Too much worry goes into matching a govt issued ID to a set of loan documents because nothing in one has anything to do with the other. The questions are in trying to match JOHN / JOHNNY without credible witnesses.
Do they have ID and do you think it is the right person?
Your post said: (You called the SOS and...) Asked if I could use credible witness when drivers license had borrowers name as John and documents name was Jhonny. I wondered because one of ther conditions in the use of credible witnessess is that the signer DOES NOT POSSESS ACCEPTIBLE ID. - - -
Based on what I know from reading your handbook and what Janet said, you had acceptible ID...only you'd have to conclude that John and Johnny were the same person if all the other stuff jived...and, I'll probably get slammed for that also, but sometimes, this job gets made harder than it is.
The only reason I prevail in this argument is because Janet corrected me.
I also thought what you were saying about too much on docs, too little on DL was in the handbook. However, I just read it and this overstated/understated stuff simply isn't mentioned. I'll gladly stand corrected if I need to.
And, by the way, it's your business...of course you should run it like you want to. On this board, though, lots of myth gets out about ID'ing people and it makes us all look like Nxxinnies. IMHO, of course.
If you DON'T think it is the RIGHT person, then you should never do the notarization.
=============================================
Re: ID Problem? Not so much. RE: Texas Jane vs. Texas Janie
Posted by JanetK_CA of CA on 10/15/06 1:50am
Msg #152624
FYI, you might be interested to know that when the CA notary Handbook defines "satisfactory evidence" it only specifies *what kind* of ID is acceptable - not how to interpret it or what content is considered supporting documentation. The concept of "less not more" seems to be widely taught and is apparently considered standard practice and good notarial procedure. I certainly don't disagree with that as a rule of thumb, but just for the record, I haven't seen anything in CA notary law that would specifically prohibit accepting "Janie" for someone whose ID says only Jane. That becomes a matter of good judgment and "common?" sense.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/1/06 3:50am
Msg #163184
Caveat....
I should add to the comment quoted above that it is just my opinion, not legal advice and that I tend to interpret this fairly narrowly. In most cases where there is a very slight variation I'd ask for other corroborating documentation. In the example quoted above, if the person had a credit card, marriage or birth certificate, or something else that showed her name as "Janie" (as on the docs) with linking info, e.g. a matching address or signature, that would help my comfort level. However, I want to be clear, that those other documents are not to be considered supporting ID. This would only be in a situation where I was confident that this was in fact the right person, but the ID had only a slight variation where a reasonable person would consider them to be the same name. AGAIN, this is JMHO. If you're not sure, you're probably better off sticking to the "less not more" rule.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/30/06 9:13pm
Msg #163106
Re: Interesting answer from Ca SOS Larry...
Let me understand...you are certain it's okay to sign up a package where the person is mis-stated to be a single person, rather than a married one, but you need exactly perfectly matching ID to ID a person? John does not equal Johnny?
I did not disagree with you the other night because I was looking at it from a title office standpoint and that they can do things to correct it without losing the work which has gotten the loan to the place it had. And, like I said...lawyers draw our papers...LO's nor EO's do without legal guidance.
However, I recognize most notaries do not think (nor should they think) past the process which brings them to a table with a misstated marriage vs single situation or how it got there. That's fine...I'll keep quiet about it because it probably does not apply here.
However, it seems like you are being inconsistent here on what can be let to slide and what must be perfect.
The reason we get these "flippant" answers is because there are about a 100 calls a day to these places where a notary cannot bring themselves to make that quantum leap between John and Johnny.
Is it the person on the document or not? That's the question.
Telling them (title/lender) how to "vest" the property (to match the ID) is not our business...our problem is ID'ing the person. If you have a doubt, flip over to the URLA and see what the age, etc. is on that document.
I am not being rude, Larry, just saying that this seems like it's not making sense to do one but not the other. Take heart...most here will disagree with me...'cepting just a couple of the readers...I'm tough...hit me with your best shot, yes, sniff...even my friends...I am ready...fire away.
| Reply by John_NorCal on 11/30/06 9:34pm
Msg #163109
Re: Interesting answer from Ca SOS Larry...
Ahhh! Brenda my dog loving friend from the badlands.....
I agree that sometimes we can't make the quantum leap from John to Johnny. In my opinion is there a reasonable belief that John is Johnny, or Tom is Tommy. Can Fahed become Fred and Bassam become Sam in the American way? Now if we follow the SOS lead, Juan can become John or vice versa because after all that is the translation. But alas, a previous correspondence with yon office has stated "No, use credible witnesses." All this suggests to me that Rosanna Hanna Danna had it right "Never mind."
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/30/06 9:47pm
Msg #163116
Re: Interesting answer from Ca SOS Larry...
Your opinion is always appreciated, John. My post to Larry tonight was stated because of the other night's post where Larry and I agreed on letting something slide...but for different reasons. One quantum leap seemed a little short in view of the other.
| Reply by John_NorCal on 11/30/06 10:24pm
Msg #163126
Re: Interesting answer from Ca SOS Larry...
My main point is that the SOS office can be a very inane source of regulatory interpretation. Kind of like the IRS, ask the same question 3 times, and get 3 different answers.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/30/06 11:11pm
Msg #163150
Re: Interesting answer from Ca SOS Larry...John...
**SOS office can be a very inane source of regulatory interpretation. Kind of like the IRS, ask the same question 3 times, and get 3 different answers/**
Same here. That's why I literally translate my notary handbook!
| Reply by Larry/Ca on 11/30/06 11:42pm
Msg #163169
Brenda, my opinion the other....
night letting a borrower sign, IF THEY WANTED TO, a loan stating that they were single when in fact they told me that they were married was based on the fact that I couldn't possibly know the TRUTH of the borrowers marrital status. In that case the borrower stated that the LO knew that he had gotten married to a Japanese lady that was not in the country nor was she a US citizen. Since it was POSSIBLE that he was married in such a way that the State of Alabama did not rcognize the marriage and in fact considered him an unmarried man, even though he considered himself married, and it was possible that the LO knew this and in fact the documents were drawn correctly and I was unable to contact the LO/TC or anyone else, I felt that it would be my obligation to complete the signing as requested. That was my reasoning. Sorry about the run-on sentence.
Larry
| Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 12/1/06 6:54am
Msg #163191
I Agree, Larry...
...from a NOTARY perspective there's absolutely NO WAY someone can produce solid proof to me they're either single OR married. They could show me a marriage certificate showing they were married a month ago & that doesn't mean they couldn't have had it annulled in the meantime. And just HOW does someone provide you with proof they are single if they've never been married? There's no certificate a government agency provides certifying singleness that I'm aware of. As I stated in an earlier posting on this topic, our MO SOS consistently reminds us as Notaries we are NOT to concern ourselves with the contents of the documents (including capacity, unless it's a company or corporate officer which we CAN attest to if provided satisfactory evidence) & focus only on our Notary certificates. Even blank spaces in a document are not a barrier to a Notary in MO.
From a SIGNING AGENT perspective I WOULD be concerned with the single vs married issue & would do everything in my power to advise the companies involved of what I'd been told if it contradicted with what the documents stated. It still wouldn't preclude me from continuing with the signing of the document package unless the company which hired me instructed otherwise if I were able to contact them at the signing table.
As far as the current topic is concerned, I'm also on the side of making sure there is some kind of proof of the EXACT name shown on the documents. I had a situation like this last month where the borrower's legal first name was Willie & the documents showed William. The title company wanted me to proceed & I refused. They ended up providing new documents which had the borrower sign as "Willie X AKA William X. The Notary certificate was printed showing ONLY "Willie X" w/o the "AKA William X". I gladly complied with the request to notarize as long as all I was testifying to in my Notary certificate was "Willie X" came before me providing proof of that name. I also had a situation last week where the borrower's legal name was Jane Curtin Smith-Jones & that's how the docs were printed. It turned out she had absolutely no ID (DL, passport, SS card, birth certificate, marriage certificate, credit card, pay stub...NOTHING!) which showed her middle name to be Curtin. Everything had just her middle initial "C" on it. I refused to proceed with the signing. I'm quite certain there's another Notary out there in good ole St Louis who didn't have a problem completing this assignment...it just wasn't me.
Along these same lines I learned something just last month about the interpretation of our MO Notary Public statutes as it relates to what's acceptable for valid ID. It's now our SOS's legal opinion (and they normally NEVER issue a legal opinion on topics like this) that a Notary may accept a hospital/nursing home ID bracelet as valid ID as long as the person is physically situated in the hospital or nursing home which issued it. Needless to say this runs contrary to what I've been taught in the past as to what constitutes a valid ID as there's no photo OR signature to compare to on a hospital or nursing home ID bracelet. But if that's now the State of MO's legal opinion, who am I to argue?
| Reply by BrendaTx on 12/1/06 7:33am
Msg #163194
Larry/Dennis...Coming Out of the Closet...
**It turned out she had absolutely no ID (DL, passport, SS card, birth certificate, marriage certificate, credit card, pay stub...NOTHING!) which showed her middle name to be Curtin. Everything had just her middle initial "C" on it. I refused to proceed with the signing. I'm quite certain there's another Notary out there in good ole St Louis who didn't have a problem completing this assignment...it just wasn't me.**
I am going to be bold here and tell the world that I actually use common sense and reasoning on these types of things. If the name is pretty close and deductive reasoning says it is the right person, it's a done deal.
Dennis, I am not swiping at you at all...I am being really honest and trying to put a little bit of a reality check into this ID thing.
If the signer provides satisfactory evidence that they were Jane whoever with only the C being different, I am going to feel very sure I have arrived at the correct place with the correct person ready to sign documents that came to *me* and I brought them to that person. It's not like they are coming to me to get a fraudulent instrument notarized where I have no other information available to me.
I would have done it if I had determined that it was the person who was supposed to be signing the documents. If others cannot feel that way, they should not do it.
I guess I was a notary long before being surreptiously subjected to the XXX's Chicken Little Syndrome...I don't even want to get started on that, but I also know that the way the DOT's are drawn up (in refi's) has to do with vesting of title.
If she had presented a DL with the only difference being the C/Curtin, I would have done the signing. (Now, you just hide and watch, Dennis. CaliNotary's probably going to come on here and agree with you and disagree with me!)
Okay...I feel better now to tell everyone that I use my own personal satisfaction to determine the ID of a signer once I have been presented with govt issued ID as required by the handbook(s).
I have only refused a signing once based on bad ID. Tonya was spelled Tanya...last name was not same. No way I felt that that was a good situation.
Okay...I better leave before I get labeled FlaBren.
| Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 12/1/06 8:20am
Msg #163201
I Wouldn't Dare be Critical...
...of your position on this issue my "uncloseted" friend! Actually I believe with the ambiguity of our State of MO Notary statutes I could've proceeded with the "Jane Curtin" signing IF I so desired. There's nothing in our statutes which spells out what's a valid ID or not. That's why our MO SOS legal beagles have stated we can use a hospital ID bracelet as valid ID. Prior to learning of that opinion there's no way I would have accepted a hospital bracelet. However I'm the only one as a Notary who could potentially be called into a court of law to state what I used to verify the identification of the signer of a document. As result of that potential reality my bar is set very high when it comes to what I accept as valid ID & that's MY preference...not yours, not the State of MO, or anyone else. We all have decisions we make every day that call for common sense to be used. I think it's safe to say your common sense will differ from mine on certain issues & there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
OK, you can go back into your closet now! 
| Reply by kathy/ca on 12/1/06 9:39am
Msg #163224
Dennis, & you wouldnt have been satisfied with leaving the
docs "as is" and having Willie sign a "Signature/Aka stmt", right? I am with you on setting my "bar" very high on Id'ing!
| Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 12/1/06 10:46am
Msg #163244
The ONLY Document...
...I was concerned with from a Notary Public ID perspective was the Quit Claim Deed requiring "Willie X" to sign along with two other borrowers. The body of the document said: "Willie X, who acquired title incorrectly as William X and...". The document signature line listed only the name "Willie X" (along with the other two borrowers' names), as did the language in the Notary certificate. The rest of the documents in the package did not require notarization & the signature lines all read "William X". The title company gave the instructions that the borrowers were to add the words "AKA Willie X" to the existing "William X" (with all borrowers initialing the correction) under the signature line & that Willie X was to sign the documents "William X AKA Willie X". I followed their instructions to the letter.
| Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 12/1/06 10:58am
Msg #163248
I Realize I Didn't Answer...
...your question regarding a "Signature/AKA stmt". No, I wouldn't have been satisfied with that as a "band-aid". It was either the way we did it on the Quit Claim Deed or not at all.
|
|
