Posted by Shoshana/AZ on 11/5/09 11:40am
Msg #309947

Notary Joke of the Day: NJ-AZ Split Signing

I was asked to get the note re-signed. Package came today. Here's the scenario. NJ notary apparently went first. He/she had the note signed correctly, but failed to notice that wife initialed with only 2 of her 3 initials. The AZ part is a hoot. Notary added a copy of the signature page and had the husband sign that one. In addition, there were no initials on pages 1 and 2.
When will these SS learn?

Reply by Philip Johnson on 11/5/09 11:52am
Msg #309954

Maybe 2 initials are her initials and he did his part.

I don't use all 3 of my initials when initialing and I wouldn't think twice about this lady's initials. So maybe the joke is only half funny.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 11/5/09 11:56am
Msg #309959

If signer has legible initials, I ask to use their middle

initial if used on the dox, as is the standard practice.
I question , however, (absent speific instructions to do so) if the lack of a middle initial when initialing should invalidate a document.
By initialing the page, they indicate that I seen and approved it .
Sounds like a QC person justifng their existance.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/5/09 12:36pm
Msg #309967

If the signer signs with three names, 3 initials.

If the signer signs with two names, 2 initials.

That's the way I handle it.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 11/5/09 3:50pm
Msg #309995

I was taught that if the name is printed Jane A Doe, she needs to initial JAD. If the initials and signature are legible that's the way it has to be.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 11/5/09 4:08pm
Msg #309999

This is the way that it is taught and also the way most of us do it.
I believe, however, that it is more NSA practie than a legal requirement.
I have have rarely seen it on lender instructions, and have never had one
thrown back for bws who refuse.
Had a lady once whose initials were PIG and she REFUSED to initial that way.
Said that her mother must not have been thinking very clearly when she named her.
Similar ?? to the recent discussion about ID vs name when there is no doubt that you have
the proper party present.. If you see them initial it then it is initialed.
I get a number of folks who have four names on ID and dox. Do they need four initials.
(Think George Herbert Walker Bush)
Also Mc / Mac / Van /De/St. etc etc names . Most folks have a way they do their initials just
as they have for signatures. If they initial/sign a doc , intending to be bound then they are.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/5/09 7:32pm
Msg #310035

"Most folks have a way they do their initials just
as they have for signatures."

Agreed. I will generally ask people to have the number of initials match the way their name is in the document, but if it's someone who is initialing docs all day long in their job and they have a set way of doing it, I feel asking them to change it is like asking them to change their signature. I don't usually make a big issue out of it.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 11/5/09 4:24pm
Msg #310002

Says whom?

You do it your way, I'll do it mine and we all should stay away from absolutes.

Reply by MW/VA on 11/5/09 5:13pm
Msg #310009

I can't imagine that the initial issue would have had any bearing on recording.

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 11/5/09 5:31pm
Msg #310012

Unless of course it is a Provident Loan! n/m

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 11/5/09 6:13pm
Msg #310022

Notes aren't recorded in AZ.

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 11/5/09 7:32pm
Msg #310034

"recorded" as in closed. I am sure most of us (including MW) know that notes are not recorded.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/5/09 7:57pm
Msg #310039

Not so fast...

Back in CT when I did Provident loans for the law firm there were many times we had to record a certified true copy of the note with the mortgage.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/5/09 10:31pm
Msg #310052

Re: Not so fast...that's very interesting, Linda.

Never heard of recording the note!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/6/09 7:16am
Msg #310072

Re: Not so fast...that's very interesting, Linda.

Yep....Schedule/Exhibit A was the legal description, Schedule/Exhibit B was a copy of the executed note - what a PITA!!!

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/6/09 7:47am
Msg #310073

Ok...as Exh. B, that makes more sense...

I didn't even think about having the note as an exhibit, although you clearly said "...record with a mortgage."

I know that my former lawyer-boss said that people sometimes objected to having the note notarized (which he does) because they didn't want it to be recordable so my mind raced down that path rather than thinking about what you said.