Posted by Shoshana/AZ on 12/18/09 4:06pm
Msg #314912

Signatures

In AZ according to the AZ Handbook on page 20, it says that the signer's signature in the journal must match the signer's signature on the document. I was taught by XYZ that the signature on the ID must match the signature in the journal. It's not always possible to have all three match because the signer must sign the document as their name is written.

I'd like to know your thoughts.

TIA

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/18/09 4:08pm
Msg #314915

"was taught by XYZ..." n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/18/09 4:10pm
Msg #314916

Whoooops....

Slippery fingers there!

What I meant to say was:

"I was taught by XYZ..."

That's where you lost me. Never trust what the NNA says in contradiction to your state handbook. They are wrong a lot of the time.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/18/09 5:25pm
Msg #314922

Re: "was taught by XYZ..."

Marian,
That was in August 2002 when I first got into the business. I didn't know then that they weren't reliable. I was living in CA at the time.
Shoshana

Reply by jba/fl on 12/18/09 5:36pm
Msg #314924

but you are asking the Q today - 7 yrs. later as though

you have not figured this out yet

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/18/09 5:44pm
Msg #314926

Re: but you are asking the Q today - 7 yrs. later as though

No, I asked a simple question. It was brought to my attention today about this being in the AZ handbook.
I just asked people's thoughts. Period.
If you can't say anything nice or constructive then don't say anything at all.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/18/09 6:12pm
Msg #314932

Re: but you are asking the Q today - 7 yrs. later as though

I don't think she was trying to be mean...

I think we're just confused.

"It was brought to my attention today about this being in the AZ handbook."

How long have you been an AZ notary? I know this might sound mean, but... you should have already known what it says in your handbook. If you're a practicing notary, nobody should have had to point it out.

That's what this place is for, though... this is a tough business with strict rules, and sometimes it's hard to be criticized. But... wrong is wrong.

More over, we are really just surprised that, even if you weren't aware of that provision in your handbook... why would you even question something you learned from the NNA for CA over your handbook for AZ?

Maybe we're missing your intention by the way you phrased it?

Reply by jba/fl on 12/18/09 7:43pm
Msg #314939

I would submit, Shoshana, that what is done in CA is of less

importance than what is done in AZ, esp. since you are now in AZ.

As for NNA, this has been discussed forever here that they are not the final authority on anything except their own membership files, for which they have a penchant for billing out for the coming year 6-9 months prior to the current membership expiration. That alone tells me of their interest in what you and I may do: just pay us, and pay us, and pay us. It even has been commented upon that there are those here who have sent their renewal fees upon receiving their billing notices, and now have an extra 2-3 years, for which all is non-refundable. Their intent: same as Pacific Docs, SOX, and others who just want to use our money for as long as they can.

I do concede that they have had impact on strengthening some notarial laws in some states, but overall, I find them of dubious value. JMHO

As for the laws of the state in which one resides: those are the ones that are of importance. Unfortunately, some states (and companies) allow steam on a mirror as proof of ability, though I do not believe AZ is one of them.

I was not being mean. I do believe that any argument/discussion that sheds light is of value, therefore, I will continue to comment. I really thought you had a tougher hide; I guess I was mistaken. (See, I don't know it all, and don't purport to know it all either. I know more than some, and less than a great many. I learn something here every day. There are many days that I stand corrected for something or another also.)

I have also found you to be one of the very knowledgable persons here that I enjoy reading and gleaning info from, so this kind of threw me for a loop...I guess you should have just smoothed your hair ignoring the prickling effect and not worried about it.

Happy Hanukkah, my dear.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/18/09 6:06pm
Msg #314929

Re: "was taught by XYZ..."

I understand that... but I guess I was just surprised to read that. Why even still remember that the NNA taught you after all this time when you should kind of know better?

Still... the same rules stands. Follow your state rules over anything the NNA has ever, or will ever say.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/18/09 4:20pm
Msg #314917

**I'd like to know your thoughts.**

I think you can worry yourself to death over minutia like this and no one really cares in the final analysis.

Reply by jba/fl on 12/18/09 4:55pm
Msg #314918

How about this from someone who is just incredulous: isn't

this kind of basic? ID, docs, journal - legal signature. Just develop your own style and method and stick to it.


disclaimer: I really know nothing, claim to have opinions on everything, however, right or wrong they may be it is my right or wrong. (Kind of a discrete opinionated package, signifying nothing.)

Reply by Philip Johnson on 12/18/09 5:06pm
Msg #314920

Thank you Sgt. Schultz n/m

Reply by James Schultz on 12/18/09 5:23pm
Msg #314921

Are you talking to me?? :-) n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/18/09 6:10pm
Msg #314930

I did not mean to be flippant, I'm sorry.

My thoughts are better said by saying that we should simply stick to the letter of our own laws and what we have in our handbook.

Since Texas notaries are not required to get a signature, I really didn't even have any business answering. We (Texans) cannot require a signature in our journal and that comes straight from being in the Capitol building and hearing the Judicial Committee say it in my presence in 2004. They do not require it so that no one can copy it. It's a privacy issue according to lawmakers who were there that day.

Therefore, I should not have answered. My "minutia" comment comes from how many notaries have tried to report bad acts (back dating or witness issues) and no authority will do anything about it. I was thinking that no one cared in the final analysis. Again, my apologies to Shoshana.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/18/09 6:28pm
Msg #314933

Re: I did not mean to be flippant, I'm sorry.

Brenda,

I know that, in the end, the big guns don't really care... but all it takes is one time of not reporting it that the notary get caught in a backlash.

I know of one here somewhat locally that got a slap from the SOS because she was aware of a situation and failed to report it because she didn't think it mattered. Well, apparently it did... and when it came out during the investigation, the notary ended up footing some of the bill for the damage, because she was one of several named parties in a lawsuit.

Had she reported her suspicions, she would have been clear of fault and removed from the case. Instead, she had to admit in a deposition that she didn't care enough to report it because she didn't want to get involved.

Well, she was hit for a claim on her full bond, plus $5,000 more, and is now stuck paying it back because her E&O insurance refused to payout on it. Again, had she reported it and were still found at fault... her E&O would have likely paid out.

So, in 2/3 situations, she would have been covered... instead because she thought nobody would care, she's in trouble. She didn't lose her commission, ... was just warned by the SOS, luckily. But she's still stuck with owing $20K in damages, and that's just her portion of it. it could have been more had they gone to court and lost.

I think had it gone to trial she would have lost her commission... and simply because she failed to notify the SOS.

That's not something I'd risk... even if it goes nowhere, as long as I do my part, then I'll have a clear conscience.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/19/09 6:52am
Msg #314974

Good info! n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/18/09 9:30pm
Msg #314949

I've always had the borrowers sign my journal the same way they sign the documents. (I use the MoJo from here.) If I run into a situation where notarized documents have their names differently (e.g. with or without an initial), I do a separate entry and have them sign accordingly.

I don't remember what I was taught (about the same time as you), but this is what always made the most sense to me. I think this has come up for discussion before and we found out that there seems to be a great deal of difference of opinion re: what to do.

Here's my reasoning: by doing the notarization, I have already made the determination that they are the person named in the document. Therefore, I see the journal entry as a record of the transaction as well as a record of how I identified them. Again, that's just me. As you probably know, CA notary law doesn't specifically address this to that level of detail.

Reply by jba/fl on 12/18/09 9:43pm
Msg #314950

Your method and your reasoning makes the most logical sense, Janet. I follow the same procedures - legal signatures match everywhere: DL, docs, journal. All one and the same. Consistency.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/19/09 1:19am
Msg #314966

Thanks Julie, and yep, I think consistency is the point. I did an estate plan with a regular attorney client this afternoon who goes to extremes regarding consistency. He says that it helps a great deal if a document ever ends up in court to be contested.

That's kind of how I see it. If ever there's any question as to whether or not a person signed a specific document, I think it will make more of a difference to the judge that the signature in the journal is exactly the same as the one on the document than if that signature matches that person's ID. But then, I'm no attorney...

Reply by Robert/FL on 12/18/09 10:08pm
Msg #314951

However the person signs the document is how I request they sign my journal. In the long run it probably doesn't matter that they be exact - as long as you have some kind of signature in your journal to prove that the person was there at the time of the notarization.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/19/09 6:54am
Msg #314976

*In the long run it probably doesn't matter that they be exact - as long as you have some kind of signature in your journal to prove that the person was there at the time of the notarization.*

Which was my thinking. That's how I was trained by Texas lawyers who actually did care about the notary law back then when it was required (signatures in journal). Only if the law speaks to the property form would it be an issue.

Reply by PAW on 12/19/09 7:09am
Msg #314978

Actually, it does matter, at least here in this district. A recent issue was resolved based on the signature in a notary's journal. Even though journals are not required in Florida, having a comparative signature sample (from the journal) was the key in proving that the signer of the journal did not sign the document in question. Had this gone to trial, I think the results, and exhibits, would have been the same. I'm sure there are other cases somewhere, where the signature in the journal was used to confirm a signature on a document.

I agree that the signatures don't have to match 'exactly', but more than 'some kind' of signature may be necessary. I always tell the signers to sign their documents with the signature that they always use, including signing my journal. I don't compare the signature on the ID with what is on the papers, just that the signatures on the papers and in my journal are consistent to me. If they look consistent and similar to the notary, then chances are, a handwriting expert will come to the same conclusion. (Of course, a master forger may be able to beat the system, but that's for the courts to decide.)

Reply by kathy/ca on 12/19/09 12:24am
Msg #314961

I always have the signature in the journal match the ID, in

most cases even the signature on the document matches. No matter how many years we as notaries have been doing loans, we become so ingrained in the way we do things, it is not at all unreasonable to ask other notaries what their thoughts are on certain procedures. This is what the board is all about and no one should hesitate to broach a subject because of remarks that will likely be made! Happy Holidays to all my fellow notaries!

Reply by Julie/MI on 12/19/09 6:55am
Msg #314977

It's another example of how the lawmakers make laws when they don't walk the walk.

Thankfully, the only nice thing I have to say about Michigan is that the notarial laws don't convey such nonsense.