Posted by Janet Heien on 11/21/09 2:36pm
Msg #311815

CA Acknowledgement question

I have a quitclaim deed to notarize..The CA acknowledgement is already printed out with the husbands name and the wifes name as Jane M. Doe a/k/a Jane Doe. She has signed above her name Jane M. Doe and also as Jane Doe above a/k/a Jane Doe. If she has ID with middle initial is it ok to leave the a/k/a in the acknowledgment as it doesn't really have anything to do with authorized capacity and she did sign both signatures. TIA

Reply by SOCAL/CA on 11/21/09 5:42pm
Msg #311823

See msg #305764.

Reply by Janet Heien on 11/21/09 7:11pm
Msg #311832

Thanks...but read that thread before and that wasn't exactly what I was asking. The deed has a place for her signature as Jane M. Doe and another place for her signature as a/k/a Jane Doe. Has something to do with dropping her middle initial. She has ID for both...So is it ok on a CA Acknowledgement to keep in the Jane M. Doe a/k/a Jane Doe. ( She has signed both ways on the quitclaim deed)

Reply by LKT/CA on 11/21/09 7:51pm
Msg #311834

If it were me, I'd line through the "a/k/a Jane Doe", initial that and leave only "Jane M. Doe" The first name is who you are identifying. The "a/k/a Jane Doe" is really just ancillary. I see documents preprinted from Florida that have "name a/k/a other name", don't see it at all for documents originated out of CA. Not saying CA doesn't have it, just that I have not seen it.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/21/09 7:44pm
Msg #311833

The thing with the acknowledgment certificate is that it's not THEIRS to fill out. Does that make sense? That's YOUR wording, YOUR certificate and whatever words are in it are your responsibility. While it's often nice that people try to be helpful and fill it out for you, you still take responsibility. Personally, I find it annoying when somebody pre-filled it for me, but that's just me being anal-retentive and obsessive because they cannot tell me how to do my job as a notary, and that includes filling out my certificate for me.

I've never seen something like this before, though. Usually, if there is an alias, it's mentioned within the document itself and then left at that, or there is a separate Name Affidavit. In fact, the name affidavit seems like the better option since the method you describe is putting the verification that she is one and the same person on you, rather than on herself as it would be in an affidavit.

I don't really have a good answer for you, but the ASN did publish something about this a couple years ago:

http://www.asnnotary.org/img/Identifying%20the%20Signer.pdf

And there's nothing in the CA handbook to address this specifically, except to say that the certificate must indicate the identity of the signer as you certify it.

So, it's likely your call... just keep excellent notes in your journal.

Reply by PAW on 11/22/09 7:13am
Msg #311855

Re: CA Acknowledgement question - ASN response

"... there's nothing in the CA handbook to address this specifically ..."

Though it's pretty well hidden, CA does not allow for inclusion of a "representative capacity" in the notarial certificate. Page 11 of the CA handbook states: "... provided the form does not require the notary public to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law." Granted, this statement refers to out-of-state certificates, but implies that stating a 'representative capacity' is not allowed by California law.

The ASN article to which you refer, states: "Your notarial certificate will also display the signer’s name in this manner." This is in reference to using a/k/a, n/k/a and f/k/a annotations. The use of the "---- known as" is considered a representative capacity, even if supporting documentation to such can be provided. So, pursuant to the CA handbook, a notarial certificate should not include the "---- known as" representative capacity, only the name of the signer as specified. Ex: John A. Doe aka John Doe (as shown within the document on the signature line) should simply be "On (date of notarial act) before me, (name and title of the officer), personally appeared John A. Doe who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence ..."

(FYI - Other states, such as FL, do allow for representative capacity.)

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/23/09 10:29am
Msg #311937

Re: CA Acknowledgement question - ASN response

Paul... I kind of felt the same way, that using the AKA is a form of representative capacity... but it seems to be a fine line. That's why I didn't want to answer it specifically... my gut reaction was the same as Lisa's... don't do it. But, my gut reaction isn't always accurate.

If it were "Jane Doe, AKA Jane M. Doe" --- that's more clear to me as a no. But "Jane M. Doe, aka Jane Doe" just seems redundant.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/21/09 8:10pm
Msg #311835

I agree with Lisa and Marian. I have run into virtually the same kind of situation before and also paused in the beginning because her ID did support both names. In the end, however, I believe I did cross out the "a/k/a Jane Doe" and just left it with the one name, including the initial. The AKA may not exactly be a capacity, but like Marian said, it felt too much like certifying something outside of my authority and went beyond what the ack. cert. is supposed to do. I agree that any AKAs should be covered in a Name Aff, and not in the actual notary certificate. It's not a requirement when notarizing a signature.

Bottom line, it just didn't feel right to me so I lined out the extraneous and never heard any comments about it.

Reply by Janet Heien on 11/21/09 9:55pm
Msg #311842

Thanks for your input. I am going to have to attach a CA Acknowledgement anyway as the property is in DC and has wrong wording..but am wondering...if you remember when you crossed out the a/k/a did your doc have 2 signature places..one for Jane M. Doe and Jane Doe? Thats what had me wondering if I should leave the a/k/a in the acknowledgement since she is signing both ways as grantor on the quitclaim deed.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/21/09 10:12pm
Msg #311843

You may not have to add a loose certificate...

From the handbook, page 11:

"A notary public may complete a certificate of acknowledgment required in another state or jurisdiction of the United States on documents to be filed in that other state or jurisdiction, provided the form does not require the notary public to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law."

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/21/09 10:24pm
Msg #311844

And I wouldn't worry about the second signature. She is only one person appearing before you. When you have a property in a trust, for example, they may have the borrower sign the document multiple times, in their capacity as an individual and again as trustee, but you still only complete one certificate.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 11/21/09 11:40pm
Msg #311848

Great question and fabulous answers. This is what it's all

about.