Posted by VioCa on 4/7/09 10:12am
Msg #283910
Signature by Mark
What would you do if a borrower has the ID signed with an X and next to it printed "Signature by Mark". Then he is prepared to sign with an X and the lender does not have a clue that this is going to happen.
It gets even more interesting, there are no witnesses available to get it done right.
It is a late appointment, the lender cannot answer the question.
Would you allow the borrower to sign the best he can assuming he can sign his name still, even though this signature will only be on the docs and in your book but not on his ID?
Or would you adjourn the closing. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 4/7/09 10:32am
Msg #283917
I would follow my state laws for notarizing a persons signature that signs by mark and include a copy of the signers ID.
|
Reply by VioCa on 4/7/09 10:36am
Msg #283919
So you would adjourn the closing for that day without witnesses, right?
My question is what if he can sign, it takes longer but if you can properly identify him, would you accept his signature?
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/7/09 10:40am
Msg #283922
If he can sign his name, not with a "mark", then it would be his signature and would be acceptable. If he is signing by Mark, then you need to follow your state notary laws for signing by mark.
|
Reply by Bob_Chicago on 4/7/09 11:03am
Msg #283940
Concur with Sylvia. Whatever scrawl he can get on the paper
should constitute a signature. I have had able bodied, literate folks,
whose regular signature looks like a worm crawled through ink.
Assuming you are satisfied that signer IS who they say they are.
Assume further, that your state does not requie that signature on ID matches
signature on dox.
Illinois is easy, as we only have to satisfy ourselves by "identication documents"
|
Reply by Becca_FL on 4/7/09 10:40am
Msg #283924
I don't know CA law, nor do I care to learn it, but if witnesses are required as they are in FL, I would ask the signer to round up two witnesses to proceed. If witnesses are required and can't be found you have to decline.
|
Reply by Teresa/FL on 4/7/09 10:43am
Msg #283927
If unable to contact the hiring party for direction (authorization to accept a "signature by mark" and if witnesses are unavailable to proceed with the signing, as is required for a signature by mark to be valid in the state of Florida, I would adjourn the signing.
|
Reply by TRG_wy on 4/7/09 10:39am
Msg #283921
Agree with Becca.
I have had signers with tremors so bad that even trying to sign with both hands is difficult.
|
Reply by Patricia/VT on 4/7/09 11:06am
Msg #283941
Unless California law has changed, two witnesses are required when a borrower signs by mark. The witnesses cannot be related , nor can they have an interest in the transaction. The following witness's statement must be signed by each:
__________________, being unable to write, made his mark in our presence and requested the first of the undersigned to write his/her name, which he/she did, and we now subscribe our names as witnesses thereto.
______________________________
(Signature of Witness #1)
______________________________
(Signature of Witness #2)
If no witnesses are present, I'd adjourn the signing.
|
Reply by Patricia/VT on 4/7/09 11:10am
Msg #283945
And, the witnesses must, themselves, have proper ID.
|
Reply by LKT/CA on 4/7/09 1:10pm
Msg #283983
<<<<And, the witnesses must, themselves, have proper ID.>>>>
Also, not required....page 14 of the handbook.
|
Reply by VioCa on 4/7/09 11:40am
Msg #283957
I am well aware of the requirements for a signature by mark but under the circumstances it was not possible to get it done that way.
The borrower was able to sign though and the only issue was that the signature on the id did not match the docs.
|
Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 11:45am
Msg #283960
Well, were you satisfied that the signer was who he claimed to be? He provided ID... and signatures do change over time. But as long as you had satisfactory evidence and can back it up if ever called on it, then you should be fine. I do hope that you detailed all of this in your journal, too.
|
Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/09 11:59am
Msg #283965
Let me add to that... I may not have done it myself, but that's just a personal opinion. If his ID is already a sig by mark, I'd insist on getting two witnesses in there just to be safe, and simply inform the lender you'd be adding witness lines because of the mark issue. The lender can't tell you how to notarize, so it's not their call.
The witnesses do not need to know him personally -- and CA law says you do not even need to identify nor record the information on the two witnesses (though I would anyway). In this case, I might have knocked on a neighbor's door or two... anything to get the witnesses.
|
Reply by VioCa on 4/7/09 12:03pm
Msg #283967
Thanks that is what I thought. Yes I made notes in my journal. I was ok with it and had no doubts that he is not the person that he claimed he is.
My ohter question is if you ever find that the borrower cannot sign other then by mark and the lender is not aware of it if you can proceed with the signing assuming that witnesses are available and you know how to properly have the docs signed.
I would say no, the lender will expect a signature back and will get a mark and two witnesses and that would be an unpleasant surprise and possible will not allow it without prior notice.
Same concept as a power of attorney signing. You cannot proceed with it if nobody is aware that this is going to happen.
This applies to the situation when the appointments are late and you cannot get further instructions from nobody. Of course I know to call and ask if it is during normal business hours.
|
Reply by PAW on 4/7/09 11:55am
Msg #283963
Considering that you are not a handwriting expert, and, as far as I know, there is nothing in the CA code that states 'signatures' have to match, then as long as you have properly identified the signer, and he can sign (not by a mark, but an actual signature), then I don't see any reason why you shouldn't proceed with the signing.
|
Reply by LKT/CA on 4/7/09 1:08pm
Msg #283982
<<<<Unless California law has changed, two witnesses are required when a borrower signs by mark. The witnesses cannot be related , nor can they have an interest in the transaction. The following witness's statement must be signed by each:
__________________, being unable to write, made his mark in our presence and requested the first of the undersigned to write his/her name, which he/she did, and we now subscribe our names as witnesses thereto.>>>>
Yes, California law has changed and the above is no longer required...page 14 of the handbook.
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 4/7/09 1:21pm
Msg #283990
Re: Signature by Mark..umm Lisa..
Page 14 of your handbook:
"The signer’s mark must be witnessed by two persons who must subscribe their own names
as witnesses on the document. One witness should write the person’s name next to the
person’s mark and then the witness should sign his or her name as a witness. The witnesses
are only verifying that they witnessed the individual make his or her mark on the document.
A notary public is not required to identify the two persons who witnessed the signing by
mark or to have the two witnesses sign the notary public’s journal. Exception: If the
witnesses were acting in the capacity of credible witnesses in establishing the identity of
the person signing by mark, then the witnesses’ signatures must be entered in the notary
public’s journal."
|
Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/7/09 1:37pm
Msg #283996
Re: Signature by Mark..umm Lisa..
I think Lisa was saying the following is no longer required. not that witnesses are not required:
__________________, being unable to write, made his mark in our presence and requested the first of the undersigned to write his/her name, which he/she did, and we now subscribe our names as witnesses thereto.
______________________________
(Signature of Witness #1)
______________________________
(Signature of Witness #2)
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 4/7/09 1:40pm
Msg #283998
If so then my apologies for misunderstanding her post. n/m
|
Reply by LKT/CA on 4/7/09 2:55pm
Msg #284014
Re: Signature by Mark..umm Lisa..
Yes, I meant what Sylvia said. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
Reply by MW/VA on 4/7/09 1:38pm
Msg #283997
Re: Signature by Mark..umm Lisa..
In VA the notary can be one of the witnesses. I don't know if that's the law in your state.
|
