Posted by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/8/09 1:06pm
Msg #306686
AKA signature question
Let's say the borrower's name is Joe Borrower, and on his AKA/Name Affidavit/Same As/whatever, the lender has listed:
Joe L. Borrower
Borrower, Joe and
Black Bart (famous California stage coach robber in the 1860s. Maybe Wells Fargo is still looking for him...)
Anyway, if there is a signature line for each of these AKAs, do you have Joe sign exactly as the AKA is listed, or do you have him sign "Joe Borrower" for each of the AKAs? I have always had them sign "Black Bart" (for example) next to where Black Bart is listed. But the other day a Realtor came absolutely unhinged and insisted that Joe sign as "Joe Borrower" not "Black Bart" and "Joe Borrower" not "Borrower, Joe"? So, what is SOP??
Actually, I've seen instructions for both ways; but where there are no instructions, what's the normal procedure? Also, sometimes, there's just one signature whereby the borrower acknowledges these are all his names, and if he insists on objecting to any really wacky names, he writes "Never known as" or somesuch and initial. I've never had a problem with this ... (of course, none of the above applies to Provident loans).
| Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 10/8/09 1:23pm
Msg #306696
What ever the spelling or however the name is typed they must sign accordingly. The different names are from the credit report and are verifying they are one of the same.
And if the borrowers name is different on the docs and the company has left that spelling off the affidavit add it and have bo sign that way too.
| Reply by John Schenk on 10/8/09 1:24pm
Msg #306697
I do it just like you do it. Sign each name as it appears and/or have them write "never known as" if one of them isn't them.
JJ
| Reply by Art_MD on 10/8/09 1:28pm
Msg #306699
There are 2 purposes to the AKA form ( my opinion).
1. Sometimes, 2 different groups do the package - TC and Lender. If application has Joe L. Borrower, a lot of the paperwork will have that name on it. Legals - DOT, RTC, etc. will have name as listed on current DOT. The TC/Lender want something to tie the 2 different names together.
2. Names on credit report often have multiple variations. Here they want to tie the names on the credit report to the person (credit reports are usually tabbed via SS#). If someone types in a wrong SS# at the credit bureau, info goes to wrong file.
ASIDE... once had 13 name variations to be signed. Borrowers name was Gucharin Chani Shivaramakrishna. License only takes x number of letters, credit card A takes y number of letters, etc. Some left off 4 letters, some 3, some 5 etc. Mix in mis-spellings = 13 signatures.
Signature should be Joe L. Borrower, Joe Borrower and Black Bart. If they only wanted "Joe Borrower" to acknowledge that these were legit AKAs. One signature and correct wording (which probably was there) would suffice.
Art
| Reply by Roger_OH on 10/8/09 1:59pm
Msg #306706
Also, if an AKA name is completely wrong, write "never known as" and have them initial. Most lenders are OK with crossing thru the wrong name (not Provident).
I would also never let a Realtor tell me how to do my job: that's MY name on the notary block of that doc, my domain, and my reponsibility; NOT his/hers.
| Reply by WDMD on 10/8/09 3:43pm
Msg #306734
"Most lenders are OK with crossing thru the wrong name (not Provident)."
I have a different take on this as far as loans that may get insured are concerned. I do compliance auditing for a lender that has FHA insure their loans. We use the credit report, name affidavit and SS card to verify every name variation in the file. You would be surprised on all the different documents in a file how many variations there is sometimes.
If a bank statement, for example, has a variation not shown on any verifying document then it is a problem that has to be fixed. Sometimes that makes it a problem when someone crosses out a variation on a name affidavit.
I would imagine some other lenders have a similar way of auditing their files. I would never let someone strike out a name variation without authorization. But thats just me.
| Reply by Roger_OH on 10/8/09 3:48pm
Msg #306735
Clarification
I should have prefaced that statement with "In my (reasonably extensive) experience..."
most lenders have been OK with crossing thru incorrect names and writing/initialing "not known as".
My bad.
| Reply by WDMD on 10/8/09 4:29pm
Msg #306747
Re: Clarification
I should have prefaced that statement with "In my (reasonably extensive) experience..."
most lenders have been OK with crossing thru incorrect names and writing/initialing "not known as".
I basically was referring in generalities, not you in particular. I wasn't doubting your experience or whether the lenders you work with are OK with you doing that. If I offended you I apologize. I just see lots of name affidavits with names crossed out that were needed with the project I am involved with.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/8/09 8:24pm
Msg #306773
Re: Clarification
Possible way to avoid the whole crossout issue: Depending on how the Affidavit it set up, have borrower write "Never Known As" on the sig line and initial. Or if there's no sig line for each AKA, have them write "I have never been known as Black Bart" and initial wherever there's room.
And Roger, I never said I let this borderline hysterical Realtor "tell me how to do my job." I simply said she was really upset and very firm about this and was absolutely shocked I would have her client sign as Black Bart (or whatever the AKA was.) Which brings up another situation: How to calm these agents down without getting into a power struggle in front of the borrowers. A lot of them are simply hot-dogging for their clients or can't stand to not be in control of everything, including the signing. With this poor woman, I simply said I understood what she was saying, but I was following this particular lender's instructions. She wasn't happy...
| Reply by Roger_OH on 10/8/09 9:23pm
Msg #306775
Re: Clarification
Sorry GG, meant it to be a rhetorical comment.  Your AKA suggestions are certainly viable as well.
Sometimes with aggressive realtors, I've had to tactfully reinforce who's doing the closing. I just tell them the proper completion of the notarized docs is my responsibility, and I'm solely responsible for what goes in the notary block. I don't tell them how to sell homes, so they don't tell me how to be a notary.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 10/8/09 11:46pm
Msg #306786
Re: Clarification
Gee, Roger, nobody's ever called me GG before. Makes me all warm and fuzzy. I love your line about not telling them how to sell homes. I work for a TC that routinely has Realtors at the signings (why I don't know) so I'm used to dealing with the psychos. If they start out grandstanding for their clients, I sit back until they run out of steam. But sometimes they throw a curve - like over the AKA issue, and I'm completely dumfounded. By the way, that's some nice car in your profile!
| Reply by Roger_OH on 10/9/09 1:20am
Msg #306797
Re: Clarification
Yeah, that's the Notarymobile, complete with one of PAW's magnetic signs. Also figured since I had to get license plates anyway, might as well advertise.
Had always been a Honda guy, but Hyundai quality has grown by leaps and bounds the past few years. My Sonata is roomier inside than an Accord (I'm 6'2", so I need it), and $5K less. Runs like a top, and would definitely get another.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/9/09 3:12am
Msg #306801
"I would never let someone strike out a name variation without authorization. But thats just me."
I also wouldn't complete a jurat for someone who had data in the document that they stated was not true without correcting it. We see all kinds of mistakes on that list - wrong middle initials, misspellings, etc. I had one last week where the wife said that one of the names was her daughter, not her.
Sometimes these errors come from someone at a department store, for example, typing in their name wrong when they're opening up an account; sometimes it could be another person altogether, for all we know. (I've seen a number of packages with an Affidavit of Judgment where they have to swear they aren't the same John Smith who has such and such a judgment against them.) I won't tell them what to do, but I do remind them that an oath is required [if that's the case] and offer some examples of how others have dealt with similar mistakes. I usually also ask them to add any other name variations they use or or have an account under, which would hopefully cover the bank account issue. Nearly always, in my experience, the corrections are for names they've never seen before and don't know why they're on the list.
Also, regarding the signatures, every now and then, I run into a person who has a squiggle for a signature (or a standard signature that they say they use all the time). If they say that is how they sign their name regardless of how it's written, I don't argue with them or require them to sign in a way they've never done before. If that's how they sign their name as typed, so be it. (Otherwise, I DO have them sign as typed.)
| Reply by WDMD on 10/9/09 4:41am
Msg #306803
I would never let someone strike out a name variation without authorization. But thats just me."
I also wouldn't complete a jurat for someone who had data in the document that they stated was not true without correcting it. We see all kinds of mistakes on that list - wrong middle initials, misspellings, etc. I had one last week where the wife said that one of the names was her daughter, not her.
Apparently we see the purpose of a name affadavit as two different things. Sure there may be "mispellings" etc. But just because the person has never "gone" by those names or spellings does not mean they are not true as far as what the document is used for.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/10/09 3:29am
Msg #306917
I'm not sure what you mean by "true as far as what the document is used for". What if they're NOT "true"? What about the situations where a name that got onto their affidavit is really a different person? Maybe we see the purpose of a notarization as two different things, as well...
When I'm notarizing a signature, my primary concern is doing a proper notarization, not the purpose of the document. If it's a jurat, the signer is asked to swear or affirm that the contents of the document are true and correct. Their concern isn't the intended use of the document either. If someone says they've never ever used that name or gone by that name and isn't willing to take an oath that the doc is correct, do we just ignore it? Not notarize it? Tell them it doesn't matter?? Some rare individuals will understand the intended use and not have a problem with it, but that's up to them.
| Reply by WDMD on 10/10/09 4:41am
Msg #306918
I suppose that's why every lender has a curing department. To get what they need to be compliant, when things are altered or missed the first time. It keeps a few folks employed where I work.
I guess different lenders have different guidelines. I just know how it works where I am. It's a no-no to cross out on documents without authorization.
As far as name affidavits go, those "mispellings" are usually not mispellings at all. They were put there for a reason. Like I said before, many different things in a file have typo's or whatever that need to be accounted for. Whether by credit report, name affidavit, SS card, or Safecheck. Alot of things in a file a borrower never sees or provides.
If I was notarizing a signature on a name affidavit that a borrower would not swear is true, the best thing for them to do is to notate on the signature line NKA. I would not, however, tell them to alter the document by striking out and "correcting" unless instucted to by preferably someone in the know like a processor or U/W.
|
|
