Posted by trnsa_IL on 11/13/06 3:16pm
Msg #159642

Just curious......What is the difference?

When my husband and I signed a mortgage loan at our local TC. He was not asked to sign exactly as his name appeared, John J. Smith. He always signs John Smith on everything. Not a word was said. I always have instructions to have borrowers sign exactly as their name appears. Is this normal, was this TC wrong, or are the rules just different for us?

Thanks,
Tonya

P.S. My husband thought this was funny because we discussed this issue on the way over to the TC.

Reply by Gary_CA on 11/13/06 3:30pm
Msg #159644

Keep laughing...

the banks have this little thing called "pre-funding conditions" that's just a friggin' riot.

I don't think there's any difference, I think the EO just5 oopsed... I cive it about a 45% chance of getting past the loan underwriter that way.

Reply by trnsa_IL on 11/13/06 10:19pm
Msg #159754

Re: Keep laughing...He's not laughing anymore! n/m

Reply by Jason on 11/13/06 5:08pm
Msg #159662

If that happened 2 me

I would visit the courthouse later to see if a J was inserted afterwards.

If yes, TC is guilty of forgery. I would report the notary.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/13/06 7:09pm
Msg #159677

Re: If that happened 2 me

**I would visit the courthouse later to see if a J was inserted afterwards.
If yes, TC is guilty of forgery. I would report the notary.**

It's bad, it's wrong, it shows a lack of character.

Realistically, though...what's the final pay-off? I doubt anyone would do a blasted thing about it. I reflect on Sylvia's experience with witnesses adding their signature to a document when it got back to the title company. I don't think anything was done about it if I remember correctly.

What WOULD be done? The bwrs were not hurt, therefore there seems to be little reason to ferret out the bad egg and I doubt it would get anyone's hackles up enough to look into it.

Maybe the SOS, but all the notary has to say is: I didn't do it. It must have happened at title.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/13/06 7:32pm
Msg #159683

Re: If that happened 2 me

Wait...it was at title that this happened. So, the fault lies with title...maybe in post closing and maybe not the notary. I forgot that when I was typing my answer that notary would blame it on title.

Besides...doesn't the LPOA say it's okay to fix that if it needs fixing?

Reply by PL on 11/13/06 5:14pm
Msg #159665

Is his signature readable? Or is it a few lines here and a circle there? If it is, who's to say it's not John J. Smith. I frequently face this, for my signature is not readable as my given name. But the state of WA says it's okay with them on my license and notary certificate, so good enough for them good enough for me.

Reply by SLN on 11/13/06 5:43pm
Msg #159667

Good point...and here's the punch line:

Legally speaking, a person's legal signature is that which is on their driver's license or other government issued ID, such as a passport. Whenever title/escrow starts screaming about "signing exactly as it appears", I tell them that...and incidentally, the only signature that you as the notary are legally responsible to witness is that which matches the ID. I pointed this out to my county recorder and she looked at me and said, "You are absolutely RIGHT...what the hell are we doing to people????" Nonetheless, the wheels of the Grand Machine Called Escrow Signups rolls on.....

Reply by KJ_CA on 11/13/06 6:52pm
Msg #159676

If my name was William Smith, and I sign Bill Smith on my DL, would Bill Smith be my "legal signature"?

Reply by Ernest__CT on 11/13/06 7:23pm
Msg #159681

Recently I did a signing for a borrower who is an attorney, let's call him "William T. Smith". His driver's license and other identification show his signature as "Bill". He has had problems with people forging his name, apparently; when people forge his name they simulate his handwriting but use his whole name. Only when his signature appears as "Bill" in his handwriting is it really him.

Of course I sent a note with the signed documents that the signature on the docs matched the signature on his ID!

Reply by SLN on 11/13/06 10:05pm
Msg #159746

For KJ and Gary, et. al.

Hi KJ....
Actually, the answer would be yes. Particularly if your notary law states that the signature on the ID is what is being witnessed. Which every state does. Therefore, the only signature you may acknowledge is that which is on the ID they produce.

here's an even wierder example which has actually happened to me.
ID says the man's name is: William Henry Bonny. (Okay so it wasn't really him...LOL)
But he signed it "Billy the Kid".

He comes to you and says "Notarize this"..(and probably holds a gun to your head) while he signs his name as : Billy Bonny. That is NOT what his ID says! It says William Henry Bonny, yet he signed it "Billy the Kid". Therefore, for all intents and purposes he is William Henry Bonny aka Billy the Kid. This is what has become of our ID system in this country and it is one of the major loopholes that does nothing to prevent fraud, which is what ID is supposed to do. If the bozos at the DMV would do their jobs right, none of us poor notaries would even have to have this discussion....

In a case such as the above, the only way to properly acknowledge him is to have him sign BOTH ways:

William Henry Bonny aka Billy the Kid

because a) he proved his legal name is William Henry Bonny, but he also gave you his official mark which is: Billy the Kid. Or X. Or whatever....
Do you see how nutty this is???

ROFL!

The moral here is: There's bozos at the DMV. They make life miserable for us poor notaries and the poor, beleagured folks in escrow and those poor sops at the county recorder's office.
If your state laws say that you can only acknowledge the signature on the ID (which mine does) then that is all you may do. In PAW's case, he is in Florida which has a looser/more convenient interpretation...but I"M S.O.L.

By the way, to Gary: I completely agree with you...not saying it's right or wrong, or this is the way it has to be...just stating an interesting point...and I agree, the chances of it getting past the recorder are slimmer with every passing day....somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints!

LOL

Reply by SLN on 11/13/06 10:16pm
Msg #159751

OOOO! Thought of another good one....

Borrowers are Hispanic. (This happens to me every week at least...)

Husband's name is and he is vested as: Julio Carlos Chavez

Wife's name is: Rosario Martinez Guitirrez

But the husband's ID says : Julio Rodriguez Chavez. That's because Rodriguez is his mother's name....


Try telling them to sign exactly as their name appears.....Unless their English is flawlessly fluent, the language barrier prevents them from understanding....they will PRINT their names! LOLOLOL
(I"m NOT laughing at them! But it took me a long time and a very cool Hispanic friend, to teach me to ask them to "autograph" this paper....

When you say "autograph", they know you mean to "sign".....otherwise when you say "sign here EXACTLY like this", they think you mean to print it!

Incidentally, it's really okay if they print their names...as long as it matches what's on their ID....that's a signature too!
See how whacky this whole thing is?????

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/14/06 2:35am
Msg #159795

Re: OOOO! Thought of another good one....

Good point! This is a problem even in Spanish! The whole concept of a "signature" vs writing their name is different in Hispanic countries - or at least many of them. (I need to find some new vocabulary in Spanish to explain the differences better!)

Reply by Cassandra Andrews on 11/14/06 4:51pm
Msg #159953

Re: OOOO! Thought of another good one....

if their signature is always printed, allow them to print it; however, if it's a 'signature' you require, just tell them 'firmar - sin usar letra de molde' because 'letra de molde' is print. after explaining it to them this way, i've never had a problem.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/15/06 2:01am
Msg #160154

Re: OOOO! Thought of another good one....

Never thought to say "sin usar..." - I'll have to try that. Thanks. I normally don't have a problem with this either, but had one last week where to them "firmando el nombre..." to them meant "con letra de molde" and "su firma" was a portion of their name (not as illegible as some I've seen" in cursive. It was the old "legal signature" question all over again. We did work it out, but your suggestion sounds like a good one. Thanks again.

Reply by PAW on 11/14/06 8:58am
Msg #159811

Re: For KJ and Gary, et. al.

SLN stated in msg #159746

>>> Actually, the answer would be yes. Particularly if your notary law states that the signature on the ID is what is being witnessed. <<<

I don't know of any state laws that says the notary is witnessing the signature on the ID. The ID is used to identify the signer as the person they say they are. The signature of that person is witnessed by the notary when they apply pen to paper, or acknowledged by the person as their signature. That is what the notary is witnessing.

How would you "witness the signature on the ID" if you used a credible witness? In that case, there is no signature on the ID.

Nevada statutes, as many other state statutes, require that the ID have a picture and a signature (except in certain circumstances), but it doesn't say anything about the signature on the ID must exactly match the name on the ID or the signature on the document. Again, the notary is positively identifying the signer, and certifying that the signer signed the document (acknowledgment) or received an oath (affirmation) which is attested by the signature of the affiant penned in front of the notary.

Also, see msg #159799 from ReneeK_MI.

Reply by PAW on 11/13/06 7:33pm
Msg #159684

According to the FL SOS, the law is very broad when it comes to the definition of a signature. Almost any mark or method is allowed as long as the signer declares that to be his/her authorized signature. For example, a legal signature may be made by a mark, a rubber stamp, or another person who is directed by the signer to sign his/her name. It's not necessarily what is printed on the document, but what the signer typically and consistently signs as, and declares to be their signature. If William Howard Taft typically and consistently signed official documents as "Billy H. Taft", and declared to the notary that that is his signature, then the State of Florida would consider "Billy H. Taft" to be the signature for William Howard Taft, whether or not it was readable, stamped or scribbled.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 11/13/06 7:37pm
Msg #159687

Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

Forgive me, please, for not believing it, but I can't imagine any state agency buying a rubber-stamped signature as legal.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/13/06 7:41pm
Msg #159688

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

Ernest, think about it.

If the person acknowledges to a notary that this was their signature...it's just another scribing instrument, IMHO.

I am not saying "yes, I know this definitely," but it makes sense to me that if a person can direct another person to make a mark for them, then them using a rubber stamp should not be a problem.

Discussing - not arguing.

Reply by sue_pa on 11/13/06 7:47pm
Msg #159692

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

not in PA. I had a blind lady once that wanted to use a rubber stamp. I called teh SOS and the Recorder of Deeds. Both said absolutely, positively no way, no how. She had to do an 'x' and have the required witnesses and proper language.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 11/13/06 7:52pm
Msg #159697

Brenda and Sue are both respected people, ...

... and their opinions should be heeded.

A blind person CAN sign her or his signature. There are shield-like plates out there so that a sighted person places the opening in the plate over the line that requires the blind person's signature, then the blind person can follow the opening, keeping the pen from wandering too far up or down.

Making a mark (usually an X) requires a different procedure from a signature signing. It is unlikely (at least in Connecticut) that a rubber stamp would be accepted.

Well, folks, we've got another one to ask our respective Secretaries of State about!

Reply by PAW on 11/13/06 7:58pm
Msg #159700

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

From the PA Code:

Rule 113. Use of Facsimile Signature.

A magisterial district judge may authorize the use of a facsimile signature in lieu of an original signature on certain documents listed by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. Such list shall be maintained by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. All documents not so designated and maintained by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts shall require an original signature.

Source

The provisions of this Rule 113 adopted May 3, 1999, effective immediately, 29 Pa.B. 3198; amended July 23, 2001, effective September 1, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 4391. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (276431) to (276432)

===================

Sue, do you know which documents are on the 'list'? Just curious, not being argumentative.

Reply by sue_pa on 11/14/06 3:53am
Msg #159798

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

I've got no idea although I'd guess checks would be on the list. But, in my case, it was evening and naturally no one was available so we used the stamp and I emphatically told the people that I would be checking in the a.m. to see if it would be permitted and I would not be releasing the documents until I was assured the stamp was okay. Prior to the title company opening I checked with the recorder of deeds (who has worked in that office for 30ish years prior to becoming recorder) and she said something equivalent of 'you know better' - if it had a rubber stamp it wasn't going to be recorded in my county. I then called the attorney contact I had at the SOS office and she told me anything notarized had to be a signature, not a rubber stamp. When the title company opened the manager told me she couldn't imagine the lender would allow a stamp - they did not. So, for my purposes, I don't know what's on that list, don't care what's on that list. Anything out of the 'norm' at 8:00 p.m. probably isn't going to fly with me. I don't read nor interpret statute - if someone wants to use a rubber stamp, I'd better have written instructions approving that before I walk in someone's front door and since that time it would require something in writing from not only my client but also the SOS. It's one of those odd balll type things that probably will happen once in a career.

I have seen signers use those little metal plates and they are pretty nifty.

Reply by PAW on 11/13/06 7:48pm
Msg #159694

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

Yes, but there are conditions for its use. I had a signing last year with a quadriplegic that had very limited use of his right hand. He could not hold a pen or pencil, but had a signature facsimile stamp made from a previous signature. The stamp was affixed to his driver's license as well as other documents. The lender even told me about this before I went to the signing, so I was prepared for it. Just to be sure it was okay, I asked our SOS, and the answer was what I posted.

As for legality of rubber stamped signatures, you have probably accepted them many, many times. Look at a company check or even a government check. They aren't real 'signatures' in the sense that someone took the time to pen it. It was affixed by mechanical means.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 11/13/06 7:58pm
Msg #159699

Paul (PAW) is another highly-respected member of ...

... our community. His points are very well taken!

The only signing I've done for a quadriplegic took forever, or at least an evening. No complaints from me! That's part of being a Notary PUBLIC. Her signature was shakey but she did sign. No, it could not be read easily, but she did sign in front of me. And the documents recorded without trouble.

Reply by PAW on 11/13/06 8:02pm
Msg #159702

Thank you, Ernest

Actually, I was as surprised as you that the facsimile stamp of his signature would be acceptable. Though the SOS said that witnesses would not be needed as would be the case when signing by a mark, the lender wanted it witnessed. Not a problem, two witnesses were present to witness the "signing".

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/13/06 8:19pm
Msg #159706

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

I suspect that this is one of those issues that will vary by state law AND by what the specific lender will accept. I think it would be a very good idea to make sure the lender is OK with it before accepting a rubberized stamp of a signature. And, of course, we all know that this wouldn't change the requirements for properly identifying the individual and having them personally appear before us...

Reply by John_NorCal on 11/13/06 10:13pm
Msg #159748

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

From the California Government Code:

(b) (1) Each instrument, paper, or notice shall contain an
original signature or signatures, except as otherwise provided by
law, or be a certified copy of the original.

Operative word: original

Rubber stamp would not be acceptable in my opinion.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/14/06 2:28am
Msg #159794

Re: Huh? A rubber-stamped signature would be OK?!

Right. No question about it in CA (and thanks for providing the proof), but I was speaking in general, including states that don't have the restriction we do. Out of curiosity, are you aware of any situations where it would be "otherwise provided by law"?

Reply by Signing_Doc on 11/13/06 10:25pm
Msg #159755

dittos on rubber stamps...addendum to NV notary laws last yr

makes it legal for a person just as PAW described to use a rubber stamp for their "signature". I had an elderly couple earlier this year doing a signing and he had a dickens of a time signing his name. I suggested that he looked into getting a signature stamp made up such as described and he was quite delighted with the suggestion. Check your notary laws. It might have changed recently (as it did here).

"Doc" Stuart...aka Doc the Travel Concierge...(look for me on the tour bus to Grand Canyon or Boulder Dam)

Reply by trnsa_IL on 11/13/06 10:17pm
Msg #159752

Re: Yes, his signature is legible...John Smith.....

I guess we'll see what happens....Thanks for all the good information in this thread! I am going to call the SOS tomorrow just to inquire not only about this issue, not naming names or anything, and the others brought up. Thanks. Tonya

Reply by Gary_CA on 11/13/06 9:10pm
Msg #159724

I'm of the same opinion still...

Good reading all this about what is technically legitimate for the signature, and I'm glad to know it.

But I still say it has a 58% chance of getting snagged by a loan underwriter who will care little about the validity of her own opinion. If resigning comes back as a funding condition you might as well talk to a wall about signature rules.

I'm not saying it's right I'm just saying that'll make your life a whole bunch easier.

Reply by SLN on 11/13/06 10:08pm
Msg #159747

Re: I'm of the same opinion still...

ROFL!

i agree ! See my post to you above: For KJ and Gary...


Best wishes,
SLN

Reply by KJ_CA on 11/13/06 10:42pm
Msg #159761

Re: I'm of the same opinion still...

IMHO, I believe the main issue is with the lender and not a recording criteria. Also if an AKA form is included it sometimes can show the variations of the name (and signature) to be the same person and perhaps satisfy the lender.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/14/06 6:49am
Msg #159799

This whole topic always drives me nuts

Paul has it and Gary wraps it up, ESPECIALLY regarding the post-closer w/o concern for the validity of his/her opinion (Gary ASSUMES that would be a woman, hmmm - issues there?lol!)

There's just a couple key points I like to add, every 5th or 6th time we debate the issue:

1. Don't view a person's signature as 'text', but as a 'drawing'

2. NOBODY can dictate to another how they should 'draw' their mark/signature

3. It's an algebraic formula: THIS(mark) equals THIS(name variant). Therefore, THIS(mark) can NOT ALSO equal THAT (name variant). As long as the math stays true, there shouldn't be any issues EXCEPT ...

4. Read Gary's post again!

5. The idea that the mark/signature presents a person's identity is absurd. If ID has "William Allan Thornton" printed, and his mark/sign APPEARS to read "Buddy Thornton", he is identified as "William Allan Thornton" and NOT "Buddy". His MARK looks like "Buddy", but his IDENTITY is "William".

The absurdity becomes quite clear when you're looking at a person's mark, and it APPEARS to look like a picture of a flower (I've seen), or any other 'icon' type mark. So - is their IDENTITY "Daisy" or "Rosebud"??

6. Don't make the mistake of dictating how a person should make their mark. "The LENDER requires that you sign THIS variant of your name." (He draws a pretty flower). You ask "Is this your signature for that variant?" He affirms. FINE! As long as it doesn't CHANGE (and therefore make the algebra formula invalid!). If his mark appears clearly to read as something different than printed and he's absolutely firm that he wants to sign that way - I have him hand-write a little "THIS is my signature for (name variant)" type note. Then, the issue is between him and lender, and it becomes very obvious that I have done MY job.

Reply by sue_pa on 11/14/06 7:46am
Msg #159803

have to agree to disagree

If a document should make it before a judge, perhaps he will rule that a picture of a flower is a signature for a person named Rosebud. We all remember 'the artist formerly known as Prince'. BUT, while I am sitting at their kitchen table and I have written instructions that say, sign as typed, that is what they will do or I will be out the door. I can almost guarantee if any of us sent back a loan package with roses drawn on all the signature lines we will not be paid nor applauded for our efforts by the title company or the lender. As I type this, I realize that I am one to permit a squiggle if they say that is their signature and I've got as sloppy, unreadable signature as the next. But no drawing for me, no ruber stamps, no W. for William - he's got to give me a lump or wiggle behind the W. I'm getting my much overdue drivers license photo taken this week - would love to test the system and draw a flower on the signature line to see if it passes muster but I'm too afraid that it will and then I'll spend the next 4 years dealing with it.

Reply by Gary_CA on 11/14/06 2:10pm
Msg #159875

I was just being politically correct

>>(Gary ASSUMES that would be a woman, hmmm - issues there?lol!)

I thought we're supposed to use she instead of he for undetermined gender these days, lots of stuff I read does.

(I lie, I did it on purpose, the devil made me do it, glad you noticed.)

Hehehehehehe

Reply by MelissaCT on 11/14/06 1:10pm
Msg #159858

Had one sent back for re-sign

because co-bwr insisted on signing "as I ALWAYS do" -- signature matched ID (which was, of course, copied & sent back with docs). Alas, lender wants as typed only. At least it was local...but, she could argue that's not her signature down the road.

Reply by Gary_CA on 11/14/06 2:07pm
Msg #159873

There's your answer...

The lender sent it back for a re-sign and it got resigned. Period. End of Story.

The golden rule applies: The (wo)man with the gold makes the rules.

Not to say that the rest of this thread is invalid... it's interesting, and may actually be of practical help... in something besides loan signings.

As for arguing that it's not her signature, that'll be a short argument if it ever comes up. They'll ask her do you recall signing this? Do you recognize this signature? "It's not the way I normally sign" is irrelevant. Even if she can't recall or refuses to recognize the signature it'll be all over when they put you on the stand with your journal and her thumbprint.