Posted by LKT/CA on 10/19/08 11:32am
Msg #267729

How Do You Handle this Scenario?

Non-loan signing so no TC to call. Paperwork not date sensitive. Divorced couple. Current ID's for both.

Paperwork - names typed are:

Him: John One
Her: Jane One

Driver's licenses are:

Him: John One
Her: Jane Jones

According to your state's notary laws, are Jane One and Jane Jones the same person? Answers welcomed from all states. TIA

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/19/08 11:57am
Msg #267731

No. n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/19/08 12:40pm
Msg #267733

Re: No.

Some have said Elizabeth Smith (on DL) and Liz Smith (on paperwork) are one in the same......why not Jane One and Jane Jones? Well, I'm thinking of CA laws where more info on license than paperwork is okay....not sure about other states.

Reply by Therese on 10/19/08 12:47pm
Msg #267734

Re: No.

Hi Lisa,

Some do say that about nicknames and such but remember its not in our notarial law. We have to be satisfied on the evidence provided that it falls within our guidelines(but you know that so I am not going to go into detail). Now I don't see where
Jane One and Jane Jones falls into your example to me they are two completly different names.

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/19/08 12:55pm
Msg #267735

Re: No.

eLIZabeth Smith

Jane jONEs

Like Liz being an actual name, One is an actual name. I did have this scenario, but because I've done a lot of work for this entity, I already had the approval to have signer cross out name, write in current name and initial. The entity already has supporting documentation of divorce on file. Really just curious about other states since the laws can be so different.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/19/08 12:57pm
Msg #267736

Lisa? Try this example

John Brown.....John Browning.....

Two different people -

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/19/08 2:38pm
Msg #267747

Re: Lisa? Try this example

You're right, Linda. I was taking the CA law too literally.

Reply by Therese on 10/19/08 1:16pm
Msg #267739

Re: No.

If this was just a simple typo for a mispelling and the docs are ok to be crossed out and initialed then sure by all means notarize the name on the ID that is furnished.
But what I think you are referring too only applys to first names. I personnaly would NOT use this more is better with a last name within a name itself i.e Mark Johnson compared to Mark John.
I once had an Elizabeth on ID on Betty on Title not a nick name to me but can be too same but has been reguraly used in society on as name with no nick name intention so I would not use the Elizabeth ID as satisfactory evidence she had NOTHING with Betty expect her Deed no can do in my book. (CW could be an option)

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/19/08 2:37pm
Msg #267746

Thanks Therese

<<<But what I think you are referring too only applys to first names. I personnaly would NOT use this more is better with a last name within a name itself i.e Mark Johnson compared to Mark John. >>>

You picked up on what I was thinking about a last name within a last name. But no, it was not a typo. Jane One was married to John One and went by Jane One but her new driver's license is in her maiden name which is Jane Jones. When I saw that, I got to thinking about how Liz is in the middle of Elizabeth... and how that would play out with last names. Last names do make it definitely different. I guess I was taking the CA law too literally. This was the first and only time I've seen this.

Reply by CaliNotary on 10/19/08 2:46pm
Msg #267749

Re: Thanks Therese

"I guess I was taking the CA law too literally."

Gee, ya think?

I don't even know if CA law specifically states "more is ok", but this is just a pure common sense situation. Liz is an obvious and common nickname for Elizabeth, that is completely different than different last names where one of them just happens to be similar to the other.

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/19/08 4:31pm
Msg #267754

CaliNotary.....Always the cynic

<<<Gee, ya think?>>>

Lock me up CaliNotary, for having thunk.

Reply by CaliNotary on 10/19/08 6:02pm
Msg #267757

Re: CaliNotary.....Always the cynic

Well I'll let it slide this time. But next time, out comes the wet noodle!

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/19/08 8:50pm
Msg #267764

Re: CaliNotary.....Always the cynic

Thank you, thank you!!! I don't think I could handle the wet noodle....

Reply by dickb/wi on 10/19/08 12:57pm
Msg #267737

no......... n/m

Reply by sue_pa on 10/19/08 1:50pm
Msg #267740

Of course I'm not in CA so I truly don't understand so much of what I see posted here. Different is different. Less is less. I always assumed when I read this "less is acceptable" that

Jane A. Ones (on id) can sign Jane Ones (on doc) but Jane Ones (on id) cannot sign Jane A. Jones (on doc).

Again, I'm not in CA but my opinion is that if anyone in any state notarizes Ones for Jones (and it's clearly not a typo to be corrected) they're just wrong becaue it is DIFFERENT.

Reply by SShoreDude on 10/19/08 4:04pm
Msg #267752

She must have some kind of documentation that she had her name changed when married, right? If there was any question, I would ask her to present those forms.

Reply by CaliNotary on 10/19/08 4:23pm
Msg #267753

That's not allowed in CA. The name has to be on the ID.

Reply by Maureen_nh on 10/19/08 2:09pm
Msg #267743

NH-Is her name Jane J. Ones, does she have any other documentation to prove this? If she does I could go with it, if it is proved to my satisfaction.

Reply by MW/VA on 10/19/08 8:55pm
Msg #267765

I've seen it handled this way--she signs "Jane One n/k/a (now known as) Jane Jones".
There is always issues with womens names changing due to marriage/divorce. That is why many are no longer changing their name to avoid all the hassles.