Posted by CT_Notary on 8/20/10 10:02pm
Msg #349830

Why don't they get it? Any thoughts?

1) Borrs ID (passport and driver license) say Jane C. Borrower. Loan docs say Julia Borrower, trustee. She has no ID for Julia. I told title that I could not notarize. They state that the trust docs contain language stating Julia and Jane are the same person and to go ahead. I declined. What may be in unavailable trust docs has nothing to do with confirming borrs identidy. Jane appeared before me, Julia did not. Title sent someone else who would notarize and I lost an account.

Don't lenders compare the ID copies to the docs? Lender is "furious'" about nuisance caused to borr.

2) Another situation: Half the docs have wife's married name, half have her married name. Borr pointed it out to LO. Lender said it didn't matter. Borr has no ID with maiden name.


I am so tempted to copy the recorded docs next week, and send copies of the e-mails exchanged on both situations to the lender and our Secretary of State.

Anybody have any thoughts on how to handle these situations? I sure hate to lose accounts to those who chose not to follow the rules!

Reply by Lee/AR on 8/20/10 10:13pm
Msg #349831

Because it's not 'on them'.... when it blows up, it's the notary's fault.

Reply by Les_CO on 8/21/10 9:13am
Msg #349867

Re: Why don't they get it? Any thoughts?/Lee

Had a no-sign last night. $700K plus. Borrower NOT an idiot. Figures much different that told. LO’s cut $12000. LO could not be bothered to answer his phone.(Friday night) Title closed. I told borrower: “Just sign these doc’s, call your lender threaten to rescind, if they don’t give you what promised.” Borrower said “LO’s a ****’in liar, he and his lender can shove his loan, I’m going to someone honest.” I said “Good luck!”

Another one the stupid notary screwed up.

Reply by James Dawson on 8/21/10 10:21am
Msg #349877

Re: Why don't they get it? Any thoughts?/Lee

Good for you. If I had posted that I would be accused of UPL although in my opinion you prevented a crime.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/20/10 10:22pm
Msg #349834

Absolutely report them... if you couldn't do it, the notary that followed shouldn't have done it, either.

Interestingly, and I don't know about CT... but in CA, we can request the journal copy if we want to.

If it were me (and this happened in CA), I would not only get copies of the recorded docs, but get the notary's details from the SOS, and write a letter to the notary requesting a certified copy of the journal page used for that notarization. CA law requires the notary to respond to letters like that with 15 business days. The notary herself would have to certify the copy. Then, it would be easy to see what ID they took as proof. If the notary doesn't respond...then that's stupid because they can be reported to the SOS for that, too.

But, that's just me... I do not like people who bend the rules like that... and if I ever did it, I deserve to get busted, too.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 8/20/10 10:27pm
Msg #349836

Oregon's threshold of "reasonably certain" takes into

account the totality of the circumstances.

There are work-arounds for myriad circumstances, and laws take that into consideration. Document the file, as they say...and go with what you would swear to in court.

"They state that the trust docs contain language stating Julia and Jane are the same person and to go ahead" In my mind, that takes the liability off of me. After seven years out here in NotaryLand, I've walked away from relatively few signings for lack of ID. If this client covered the discrepancy via Trust Docs?

Variations of a name? If I'm convinced? That's all the Law asks. I Notarize with the best due diligence available, and stand by my decision - on the Stand, in Court.

I would have gotten this done.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/20/10 10:45pm
Msg #349840

I suppose it just depends on our state laws...

Oregon's ID laws are much "looser" than some other states, especially California.

Yesterday I did a jurat for a guy who had an Illinois ID Card that expired last year. It was issued in 2004, so I couldn't accept it because in CA, if the ID is expired it has to have been issued within the past 5 years.

Now, there was no doubt this guy was who he said he was... but I was obligated by statute. So, we had to round up a couple of credible witnesses for him, which was easy enough.

What gets me is how people can get along without proper ID? I'll admit, there are times when I just want to right out ask them lots of details as to why.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 8/21/10 1:07am
Msg #349851

Credible Witness doesn't work for me, since the rule is:

"The notary personally knows someone who swears that he or she personally knows the signer in order to use the credible witness as identification." Since the notary must personally know the witness, and the witness must personally know the signer, and both must be present during notarization, and all witnesses must take an oath/affirmation as such, I can't think of an instance, where I have lived here only 8 years, where I could do that. So, in Oregon, this Notary can't just "round up a couple of credible witnesses."

Where I'm reasonably certain I could state, under oath/affirmation, that I was a diligent in my personal confirmation of the identity of a borrower, I proceed.

By the way, Oregon doesn't allow expired government issued ID as primary proof of ID. As for Passports, the lack of a physical discription appears to be a key factor of the same vein.

A formidable task is upon the Notary to Identify the Signer in any State. We are -people- hopefully with common sense and a working knowledge of our state laws. We are ~presumed~ competent in Court, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary.

JMHO.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/21/10 10:31am
Msg #349882

Like I said, it's state specific...

In California, Credible Witnesses fall under two categories... The Oath of One or The Oath of Two.

The Oath of One is pretty much what you describe... a single person who knows both the notary and the signer.

The Oath of Two are two individuals who know the signer, and swear, under oath, to his identity.

In California we have very specific forms of ID that we can take... and even if we are reasonably certain a person is who they say they are... if they don't present one of the valid forms, then it's a no go unless the Credible Witness Rules apply.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 8/21/10 7:27am
Msg #349863

Re: I suppose it just depends on our state laws...

From what I read in forums, it seems that Calofornia notaries can basically use CWs whenever they want. Here in Florida, they can only be used it it is difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain valid I'D. That doesn't mean that if John Doe just moved here from Texas and only has an expired Texas DL that a CW can be used... He has just been too lazy to go get a Florida driver license. That doesn't qualify as "difficult or impossible" in my book.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/21/10 10:41am
Msg #349887

Re: I suppose it just depends on our state laws...

It's the same in here in California... but each situation is different. I can't play judge about *why* they don't have proper ID... I can only ask if it is "very difficult or impossible" to obtain it. When I do that, I remind them that they are under oath, just as if they were sitting in court, and that I will obtain their thumbprint.

When the CWs are swearing to his ID... that's THEIR problem, not mine.

One of the requirements is, "The credible witness reasonably believes that the circumstances of the signer are such that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of identification."

In the case of this guy from the other day, I beleive that to be true in a way... only because he did relay the circumstances of the situation to me voluntarily. Now, personally... I didn't feel it was entirely impossible, however, it would have been very difficult because of circumstances I don't think are exactly proper to divulge. Let's just say, he's not exactly the most upstanding guy in the world... or very trusting of local government... but that doesn't mean I'm not obligated to notarize his signature if he had multiple individuals willing to go on record and vouch for his identity.

Reply by desktopfull on 8/20/10 11:27pm
Msg #349843

Re: Oregon's threshold of "reasonably certain" takes into

I don't see where "language in a trust" is an acceptable form for identification in Oregon. Looks like the statutes changed on January 1, 2010.



2009 HB 2085 makes changes to the acceptable forms of identification that a notary may use when identifying a signer that affect notaries and notarizations, starting January 1, 2010. Based on this law, a notary in Oregon could not have notarized the signatures for the loan docs in the OP without violating the law.

Identification Documents

The following types of identification may be used to positively identify a client, if they are current, i.e. not expired.

•A current drivers’ license or current identity card issued by any state.
•A current United States passport or a current officially recognized passport of a foreign country. A United States passport means a U.S. passport and a U.S. passport card issued by the U.S. Department of State.
•A current United States military identification card.
•A current identity card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe.
•At least one current document issued by the federal government or a state, county, municipal or other local government and containing the person’s photograph, signature, and physical description

Reply by LMS on 8/20/10 11:52pm
Msg #349846

Re: Oregon's threshold of "reasonably certain" takes into

Thanks dtf, I was going to post that myself!! Not to mention if she didn't have ID before Jan 1 in the correct name, it wouldn't have been legal then either!!!!! Oregon may be a little looser than Ca, but it's never been that loose. Statements in a trust doc would not have flown with me. After seven years in "NotaryLand" I have never seen anything that says, hey go ahead and notarize if you're "reasonably sure."
There have always been guidelines on what is acceptable for ID and those were looser prior to Jan 1. but ID has always been a must. Trust docs are not ID. We can use credible witnesses but they have to be known by the notary and by the signer.

Let's hope you never have to take the stand, Susan!

Reply by desktopfull on 8/21/10 12:18am
Msg #349847

Re: Oregon's threshold of "reasonably certain" takes into

Those statements were made by someone that says they have their JD too. She says she never took the bar exam though. I'll report any notary that does what the OP stated. In FL, that can carry loss of commission and/or up to a $5,000.00 fine and/or jail time. Either the name on the id matches the docs, they have the credible witnesses or I'm out of there. I'm not breaking the law and risking jail time for a closing for anyone.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 8/21/10 7:31am
Msg #349864

Nothing in Florida law says names have to match

It only says that the notary must have satisfactory evidence. That doesn't mean that Jane Doe can be notarized with an ID that says Mary Smith, but some discrepancies such as middle/maiden can be overlooked IMO. The "more but not less" rule is a myth in Florida.

Reply by desktopfull on 8/21/10 11:04am
Msg #349893

Re: Nothing in Florida law says names have to match

I know, you can have to much information on the id but not less than what's stated on the documents ie: Mary Smith can be on the docs and she can have an Id that says Mary Ann Smith and it's okay to sign, but if Mary Ann Smith is on the docs and her Id says Mary Smith she can't sign the docs without credible witnesses. Florida is very specific about this.

I would never notarized a signature based on the info that the OP stated. Sorry, but Jane & Julia aren't even close to being the same and someone's word over the phone that the name discrepancy is covered in an unavailable "trust document" is not proof of the persons identity.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 8/21/10 12:50pm
Msg #349906

Re: Nothing in Florida law says names have to match

>>>, you can have to much information on the id but not less than what's stated on the documents ie: Mary Smith can be on the docs and she can have an Id that says Mary Ann Smith and it's okay to sign, but if Mary Ann Smith is on the docs and her Id says Mary Smith she can't sign the docs without credible witnesses. Florida is very specific about this. <<<

No, Florida is not specific about this. There is absolutely nothing in the Florida statutes or in the governor's handbook which says that there has to be more on the ID than there is on the document. Even if the ID says Mary Smith and the doc says Mary Ann Smith, as long as the notary is satisfied as to the identity of the person, the signature can be notarized.

The "more but not less" thing is a MYTH made up amongst notaries with no legal basis whatsoever.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/21/10 10:50am
Msg #349890

This is one of the biggest myths out there....

"Either the name on the id matches the docs..."

At least for California... and that's all I can speak to....

But there is NO LAW that says the individual signing a document must be an individual named in the document. Now, for those states that allow certifying capacity, that might be different.

In California, that's not true at all. We're not responsible for, nor concerned with the contents of a document...except to verify that it is a complete document and to record the general nature of it in our journals. Only the identity of the individual signing it is of our true concern. If they are doing so illegally... the notarization is perfect evidence to bust them!

People forget that a notarization has ZERO impact on the legality of a document. If it were an illegal document before notarization, it still will be afterward. Except, of course... that the notarization is a perfect way to bust them in court, especially if a thumbprint was taken.

If somebody comes to me and says they have Power of Attorney to sign for somebody... it's none of my business, nor can I ask to see the POA document. I just have to accept that they are claiming that capacity. California law protects us in that way... which is one of the reasons why our certificate wording is so strict.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/21/10 11:11am
Msg #349895

PS....

What I posted above is general in nature, of course. If you're situation is as signing agent for a loan package, that's obviously a bit different in that you have added responsibility.

But as a general rule... it's very true...

If Julia Doe is written on the paperwork, but Jane Doe is in front of me... and she claims that that's who she is and she has the right to sign... so be it. I can't tell her otherwise...as she is the one taking on the capacity, not me. But you can be darn sure that Jane Doe's signature is the one I'm notarizing, not Julia's. If she signs as Julia... but her ID is Jane... forget it, that's a no-go.

(Again... this is CA.... I can't speak for other states.)

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/21/10 11:10pm
Msg #349944

Not really... check this out!

I've been scratching my head on the issue of whether or not, when checking ID, we (in California) need satisfactory evidence that the person we're IDing is the same as the one named in the document ever since it came up several weeks ago. I had always believed that the ID needed to support the name on the documents (if not match exactly), but after you posted about this, and I read the verbiage in the General Information section of the CA SOS handbook, it seemed to support what you said.

However, I recently found myself looking at the actual civil code itself (for a potential CW situation tomorrow). I was stunned to find language in two places that appears to differ considerably from what's in the General Information section - or at least can be interpreted differently - and that I believe supports my original beliefs. Here they are:

PAGE 40, Civil Code:

"§ 1185. Acknowledgments; requisites
(a) The acknowledgment of an instrument shall not be taken unless the officer taking it has satisfactory evidence that the person making the acknowledgment is the individual who is described in and who executed the instrument."

The operative words, of course, are "who is described in...", which I would interpret to mean by name. The second place is under the description of requirements for Credible Witnesses, a few paragraphs down:

"(1)(A) The oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally known to the officer, whose identity is proven to the officer upon presentation of any document satisfying the requirements of paragraph (3) or (4), that the person making the acknowledgment is personally known to the witness and that each of the following are true:

(i) The person making the acknowledgment is the person named in the document."

This seems to be pretty straightforward and since this is the very first of the four requirements for a CW, I believe we can assume it to be rather important. (Unless I'm having a "senior" moment here, in which case, please set me straight! ) It also seems to be shockingly different from what is written in the General Information section, which is probably all that most people ever read. (I confess it was for me, the first time I took my notary exam ten years ago.)

Of course, it still doesn't mean we are to be concerned with the content of the document or whether or not it's correct; just that the person signing is the same as the one named who SHOULD be signing - barring evidence to the contrary.


I also seem to remember another situation not too long ago where the content in the General Info section could lead a person to believe something different than what's in the actual code. More than a bit unnerving, imo... [When I remember what that was, I'll let you all know... ]

Reply by PAW on 8/22/10 7:00am
Msg #349958

Almost word for word the same as in Florida

From Subsection 117.05(5) of the Florida Statutes:
A notary public may not notarize a signature on a document unless he or she personally knows, or has satisfactory evidence, that the person whose signature is to be notarized is the individual who is described in and who is executing the instrument. A notary public shall certify in the certificate of acknowledgment or jurat the type of identification, either based on personal knowledge or other form of identification, upon which the notary public is relying.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/22/10 9:23am
Msg #349965

YEP.......It's what I said in the prior discussion

<<<<*****The person making the acknowledgment is the person named in the document."*****..........This seems to be pretty straightforward and since this is the very first of the four requirements for a CW, I believe we can assume it to be rather important..........Of course, it still doesn't mean we are to be concerned with the content of the document or whether or not it's correct; just that the person signing is the same as the one named who SHOULD be signing - barring evidence to the contrary.>>>>

This was my position in the prior thread, I felt the acknowledgment itself backed that up: ".......who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to the person(s) whose NAME(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument....." Jane Doe has no business signing paperwork that doesn't BELONG to her.

As for not being responsible for the content of the document - as you said, Janet, we are not responsible if it's correct, but we ARE responsible to a degree - to ensure that our or CWs names are not in the document nor can we or CWs have a financial interest in the document.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/22/10 7:17pm
Msg #350028

Re: YEP.......It's what I said in the prior discussion

"we ARE responsible to a degree - to ensure that our or CWs names are not in the document nor can we or CWs have a financial interest in the document."

"To a degree" - I agree. I think it's our responsibility to make sure that the principal and the CWs are fully aware of the restrictions on who can be a CW, and to administer to the two CWs an appropriate oath regarding those restrictions. We should make sure they're clear on this, but I don't think it's ultimately our responsibility to ensure that this is the case any more than it's our responsibility to ensure the truthfulness of any other document for which we complete a jurat.

One thing I do to make sure the CWs understand what's being asked of them is to have them read a form that I created long ago which is like an affidavit with a jurat. It states the four requirements for a CW, with a blank line to fill in the name of the principal. I administer the oath and have every CW sign and print their name and address. This then gets inserted into the back of my journal (with reference to the page number where they've also signed the journal) for further documentation. Beyond that, officially, it's on them, imo.

As for the previous post, it seemed to me to be a difference of opinion on the definition of "subscribed to" as used in the acknowledgment verbiage. But the actual Civil code seems to clarify that.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/22/10 9:38am
Msg #349970

Re: This is one of the biggest myths out there....

<<<In California, that's not true at all. We're not responsible for, nor concerned with the contents of a document...except to verify that it is a complete document and to record the general nature of it in our journals. Only the identity of the individual signing it is of our true concern.>>>

In most cases, we are notarizing for strangers. However, when using credible witnesses to ID the signer, they cannot be named in the document nor can they have a financial interest in the document. Same goes if we are notarizing for family (which I personal don't do). To *that* degree, we ARE responsible for the contents of the document

Reply by Susan Fischer on 8/21/10 2:10am
Msg #349853

You don't know me, LMS, but know this: With the facts

presented, I would stand in any Court in the Land, and defend my testimony, with my journal in evidence, and my oath to the Truth. Add a fingerprint, which I would require, and if the signer were to be an imposter? That's on the imposter, not me. If the fingerprint proved that person who signed my journal was indeed the person as presented? Dead end for the complainer.

Trusts are legal documents - they carry the weight of law. If I can piece together the puzzle of name variations with other sources of identity with reasonable certainty, which is a common situation, that's called due diligence.

If there's no way to legally identify someone, I walk away.

Like I said, LMS - you don't know me, and neither does your new co-hort, dtf.

Reply by desktopfull on 8/21/10 2:32am
Msg #349854

Re: You don't know me, LMS, but know this: With the facts

So you willingly violate the notary Identification law of your state and perceive that you know better than those elected by the voters who wrote the law.

Of course Trusts are legal documents, but they aren't used for Identification and are not listed in acceptable forms of identification for notarization of signatures for your state.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 8/21/10 2:49am
Msg #349855

No, the Trust Docs in and of themselves do not

constitute legal ID. I said that.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/21/10 5:52am
Msg #349858

Re: No, the Trust Docs in and of themselves do not

""They state that the trust docs contain language stating Julia and Jane are the same person and to go ahead" In my mind, that takes the liability off of me"

All due respect Susan...no it doesn't - not by a long shot. And I don't believe you truly believe that and stand by that theory.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 8/21/10 3:10pm
Msg #349915

You're right, Linda. I liken this example to a POA

Notarization - in that it not up to met to judge if the POA is valid for that transaction, however, if something is blatently wrong (POA has expired, or doesn't permit real estate transactions, etc), then the doc can't be notarized. Oregon rules state the Notary can use his or her personal comfort level with the circumstances, as in the case of needing to see proof of a POA, or not, and if so, to note the proof in our journal.

A few years back, a private party needed a POA. Grandma was in a private-care home, she had no ID- none. Supposedly she had been in that home for something like 7 years. Purse lost in the move from her home back East (which "son and DIL wanted to sell,) and no replacement ever gotten by "son" or caregiver. CW was out, since I didn't know any of the parties. Grandma didn't talk, but grunted a few times, and clearly didn't appear to care about what was going on. I had no choice and walked away, which suited my comfort level just fine - as I didn't even get to the competency of Grandma issue.

When acknowledgement in a Representative Capacity, is is best practice to require some confirmation of the capacity, like partnership agreement, company annual report stating officers, official minutes, etc. It's not set in stone, but "usually best to see some proof" the signer is legit in his capacity.

I guess my point is that there are myriad situations that arise, and if I can, with clear conscience and my best efforts under Oregon law, I'll proceed.

I appreciate your comment.

Reply by LMS on 8/21/10 10:38am
Msg #349885

Re: You don't know me, LMS, but know this: With the facts

Again, I will say, I sincerely hope you never have to take the stand.

Your right about one thing, I don't know you, not personally. But I have learned a lot about you from all your posts.

A fingerprint would not help you, if by asking for proper ID and none was forthcoming, the signer would not be in your journal in first place. Due Diligence is important but without the proper ID, it makes NO difference how certain you are, you cannot notarize a signature. I will say again, trust documents may be "legal" but they are not identification.
Just as birth certificates, marriage licenses, divorce decrees etc are not ID. They can be used/are necessary when applying for said identification from government entities. But, a notary cannot use them for identification. It is not a notary's job to create a paper trail; it is the notary's job to identify a signer by "Government Issued Photo ID." Obtained from the government entity that has already documented, said paper trail and determined the identity of the person.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/21/10 7:05am
Msg #349859

Both of OP's situations & probable remedies ...

Most state's statutes (and I stress, actual statutes - which is what notaries should IMO be comfortably familiar with) use the term "based upon" in reference to ID documents. Statutes are written with each individual word chosen judiciously; when they say identification is "based upon" they MEAN "based upon". They do not mean identification "is solely confirmed by" ID docs when they say "based upon" or "upon the basis of" or whatever.

In situation #1, Jane C. is supposedly named in a trust as Julia, Trustee. She has ID for "Jane C." It begs the question - how did Jane ever get named as Julia, Trustee? That's the million dollar question - was that her birth name? Fine, can she provide documents to give me personal satisfaction that the two names belong to one person? Did she change her name? What caused this, and can she paper-trail it to satisfy me. The logical remedies to this lay in the unknown - how did this name change happen. I'd have asked.

I'd have to actually see & hold in my hand a recorded Trust w/the "Jane is Julia" language (which wasn't even the case in OP's situation) and take the whole of the situation into consideration - live, in-person, myself. Could never say as a Monday Morning QB that I'd be satisfied or not.

Situation #2 - married/maiden names. Mostly likely took title with maiden name, then married OR took title married, then divorced and took maiden name back. Both situations have plenty of 'paper' to tie the two names to a single individual. Show me the paper, I'll decide if I'm satisfied.

Alternatively - if your state statutes don't allow this, or there's no access to those papers, you can always ask TC if you can simply use "Maiden, who took title as Married" or whatever the case may be. You ID the FIRST name, & certify THAT identity, and ensure the changes you make are recordable. Problem solved.

Just because one person couldn't, wouldn't or didn't solve the issue legally & recordably does NOT ALWAYS mean nobody else could; to assume that and go chasing after recorded docs to report someone for alleged crimes is rather self-righteous, IMO. If indeed there is absolute fraud beyond question, that's one thing - but in these two situations, I don't think that's a fair assumption.

FWIW - Just yesterday I had "Joe Schmoey" and "Jane J. Schmoei", h/w. Eastern Indian, and I learned something interesting - in their alphabet, there is no difference between a "y" and an "i", they are the same - which is how they came to have these 'different' last names. Her D/L did not have a middle name or initial, though (did have last name accurate). She did have it on her Perm. Resident Card - works for me, glad I asked.

Had to hand-correct the docs - as it had the last names matching (easy assumption to make) and her name really ends with an "i" not a "y". Closed, recordable, fundable, legal, done.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/21/10 10:13am
Msg #349874

To FlaNotary2

<<<<From what I read in forums, it seems that Calofornia notaries can basically use CWs whenever they want. Here in Florida, they can only be used it it is difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain valid I'D. That doesn't mean that if John Doe just moved here from Texas and only has an expired Texas DL that a CW can be used... He has just been too lazy to go get a Florida driver license. That doesn't qualify as "difficult or impossible" in my book.>>>>

First I will say that an expired ID (issued outside of 5 years) is NO ID at all.

NO......CA Notaries do not use CWs "whenever they want". We use them as a LAST resort. CWs are not always easy to get - TWO are needed, or one if the CW knows both the Notary and the signer, which is rare - as if the signer just snaps their fingers and CWs appear. Even during the initial call, when questioning the caller about their ID and <if they're honest, which sometimes they lie> they say it's expired (and was issued in 1929), when describing CWs they hesitate when thinking about who would be WILLING to submit THEIR ID and sign the Notary's journal PLUS take an oath attesting to the signer's identity. Once the signer does find two people willing to be CWs, the CWs have to show up at the appointment time - depending on where they live and their schedules, it may not be feasible for them.

If you have hospital patient's, the elderly who are not mobile, it is definitely "difficult or impossible" for them to get to the DMV. Their family did not think to take them to the DMV to get a State ID when they are no longer driving.....when I notarize for the above described persons and I see that their driver's license is due to expire, I inform the family about getting an ID card, because if they don't they will have a lot of trouble conducting business and getting signatures notarized on that person's behalf.

With that being said, if a person left the ID in the car or at home, yes, I have them go to the car or home to retrieve it. If that person lives around the block, it is feasible to wait for them to go and get their ID, if not, we reschedule. You also must consider when you are AT an appointment it would be "difficult or impossible" to get ID. Due to CA being broke, the lines at the DMV are wrapped around the building and to get an appointment - would be weeks or months away. So it would be "difficult or impossible" to get an updated ID.

CWs here are not taken lightly - we need TWO of them, or ONE if the CW knows both the Notary and the signer, and that's rare - nor are they possible at the snap of one's fingers. Getting three people together in the same place and at the same time can be a PITA).

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/21/10 10:34am
Msg #349883

Re: To FlaNotary2 - to add

To have to ask/explain to friends or neighbors that you don't have current ID and need two people with ID to show THEIRs before a Notary, have THEIR ID recored, sign a journal and take an oath - people aren't always quick or willing to do that - NOR do they want others knowing their business or that they are conducting business.

As we know, for those states that require witnesses at loan signings - the borrowers don't want anyone knowing their business (that they're refi-ing, or completing a loan mod, or whatever). Yes, it's different from CWs <I know that> but it's the point that people don't want others knowing their business or that they're conducting business.

So this credible witness "thing" is not a cake walk here, as many would assume.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/21/10 11:06am
Msg #349894

Re: To FlaNotary2 - to add

Lisa's right. Credible witnesses are often used with elderly people...

Twice in the last month I was called to the hospital for the EXACT same situation, just two different people. Both times I had an elderly person who was in a car accident. The CHP had the car (RV in one case) towed. The family members needed to get access to the towed vehicle or have it moved elsewhere. In order to do that the CHP and the tow yard require a notarized letter/power of attorney from the owner of the vehicle.

The problem is that in both cases, the CHP officer took the driver license away from the person to mail it back to the DMV. This is standard protocol when they have elderly drivers who they suspect should no longer be driving -- the literally seize the ID. To get it back, they have to wait for it to be processed through the DMV and they have to make an appointment for a drivers test, and that process could take forever.

Well, that makes it really difficult a day or two later to get anything notarized... especially when they are looking at expensive impound and storage fees at the tow yard.

In those situations, credible witnesses need to come to the hospital. A real PITA to be sure, especially if the people have to travel several hours to get there. In both my cases, the drivers and their families/friends lived at least 2 hours away.

Reply by desktopfull on 8/21/10 11:17am
Msg #349896

Elderly people

FL used to issued a non-expiring state Ids to the elderly when they surrendered their DL, but for some reason now issue them with an expiration date. It doesn't make any sense when it is so difficult for them to get to the issuing agency to replace the Id, especially those in the VA hospitals and nursing homes.

Reply by Maureen_nh on 8/21/10 10:18pm
Msg #349939

Re: Elderly people

We used to do that here for state ID after you hit 65 --it was good for life. Now I guess the almighty dollar is king and they get that renewal fee or the folks go without.
Sad

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/21/10 11:25pm
Msg #349946

Re: Elderly people

Here in CA, Senior Citizen IDs are good for 10 years. I think there may be valid reason for that. People over a "certain age" can have their physical appearance and the way they sign their name change very significantly over a 10 year period. I think it's a good compromise time limit. It precludes having to go every five years for someone in their declining years. Beyond that, it can become a bit dicey, but there's also a good chance that they'll have issued someone else their POA before it expires - or they do...

Reply by James Dawson on 8/21/10 10:39am
Msg #349886

Re: To FlaNotary2 Addendum

Creditable witnesses I have one today for a Trust which I must determine the following.

(Civil Code
section 1185(b)(1)) The notary public must establish the identity of the credible witness by
the presentation of paper identification documents as set forth above. Under oath, the credible
witness must swear or affirm that each of the following is true (Civil Code section 1185(b)(1)
(A)(i)-(v)):
1. The individual appearing before the notary public as the signer of the document is the
person named in the document;
2. The credible witness personally knows the signer;
3. The credible witness reasonably believes that the circumstances of the signer are
such that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of
identification;
4. The signer does not possess any of the identification documents authorized by law to
establish the signer’s identity; and
general information 9
5. The credible witness does not have a financial interest and is not named in the document
signed.

Not All that easy for Ca Notaries IMO

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/21/10 11:26pm
Msg #349947

Re: To FlaNotary2 Addendum

Maybe I should have finished reading the rest of this thread before posting above...

Reply by CaliNotary on 8/21/10 9:59pm
Msg #349937

In theory you're correct

"NO......CA Notaries do not use CWs "whenever they want". We use them as a LAST resort"

But as we've seen on this board, plenty of CA notaries use them whenever they want. As far as they're concerned, if the person doesn't have a valid ID, it doesn't matter what the reason is, that's when you break out the CWs.


"Due to CA being broke, the lines at the DMV are wrapped around the building and to get an appointment - would be weeks or months away. So it would be "difficult or impossible" to get an updated ID. "

It's not difficult at all. You go to the DMV, you get in line, and you wait. Time consuming? Yes. Difficult? Nope. And it's not "difficult" it's "very difficult", there is a distinction. Loosening a tight lid on a pickle jar is difficult. Loosening a tight lug nut with your bare hands is very difficult or impossible.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/22/10 12:29am
Msg #349952

Re: In theory you're correct

<<<.....plenty of CA notaries use them whenever they want.>>>

Well, I should have spoken for myself, because I sure as heck don't - it is a hassle. I had a gentleman reschedule our meeting 4 times over a 3 week period .....he said he couldn't get anyone to be CWs for his sister whose DL expired 10+ years ago. Finally, he found two family friends willing to be CWs. Getting three people together in the same place at the same time...not always feasible.

<<<It's not difficult at all. You go to the DMV, you get in line, and you wait.>>>

Been to the DMV lately CaliNotary, without an appointment? Well, I have WITH an appointment and I can say I felt sorry for those without an appointment. And for those that have a day job, it won't get done on their lunch half hour.

<<<Time consuming? Yes. Difficult? Nope.>>>

Not going to happen on one's lunch half hour. The DMV nearest me, they aren't taking any more appointments until 2011....believe me, I tried. In fact, to get an appointment AT ALL - a month from the day I went online - I had to settle for the Pasadena DMV.

Loosening a tight lug nut with one's bare hands IS the equivalent of dealing with the DMV.

Reply by PAW on 8/22/10 7:11am
Msg #349959

Re: In theory you're correct

Going to the DMV, especially in CA, takes planning. It reminds me of the old adage, "poor planning on your part does not an emergency make on my part!"

The point being that renewing one's DL or obtaining satisfactory and acceptable ID is not "very difficult or impossible" for the majority of people. And, for CA seniors, it may even be possible to renew their license (get an extension for five years) by mail. (Restrictions may apply. See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm for details.)

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/22/10 11:51am
Msg #349979

To PAW and FlaNotary2

Those NOT in CA to actually go to the DMV and see what's in the cards *can only speculate* as to what they *think* is or is not difficult or impossible. I'm HERE and have had to deal with the DMV, getting my son a state ID.....so, I KNOW !!!

No one is going to stand in line all day, with an elderly person to get a state ID. I found out from a customer who did get her nearly immobile, stroke patient husband a senior ID card - there is ONLY one way to get a state ID card without going to the DMV: They will send a field agent if the person is BEDRIDDEN with a NOTARIZED, DOCTOR'S LETTER saying due to the person's ill health and being bedridden, they absolutely cannot go to the DMV in person. If that person is at all mobile, they have to go IN PERSON.

They must depend on family to take them and if family lives hours away, works, it IS

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/22/10 12:00pm
Msg #349981

Re: To PAW and FlaNotary2....the rest of my thought

continuing ......

.....it IS difficult or next to impossible to get ID. Many of the elderly who are in nursing homes or assisted living facilities *and DO have current ID*, their family lives hours away and even then, the family member is saying how it is difficult to meet up to get me the paperwork for their elderly family member to sign - and this is WITH current ID.

I prefer valid ID over CWs any day. For the average Joe, yes, they should keep current on their ID. But for the elderly who depends on others to help them, it is not the cake walk you think it is.

Reply by CaliNotary on 8/22/10 3:49pm
Msg #350010

I'm not talking about people in nursing homes

Obviously their situation is one that makes many normal activities qualify as very difficult or impossible. I'm talking about the average Joe who has an expired license, or lost his license, or got married and changed her name. It may be a huge pain in the butt to get it rectified with the DMV, but it wouldn't be very difficult or impossible because all they have to do is go to the DMV, get in line and wait. And sometimes they don't even need to do that, they can get it done on the DMV's website.

My DMV trick that has served me well in the past is to get there 5 minutes before they close. As long as you're there before they lock the doors, you will get helped. The lines are much smaller and hopefully the employees are a little more motivated to move faster, since they can't leave until everyone is finished. Every time I've done it that way, I've been in and out in about 30 minutes.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 8/22/10 7:16am
Msg #349960

Re: In theory you're correct

Well, from my observations it seems that California notaries are using CWs too loosely... Name on ID doesn't match? Use a CW. Woman just got married and hasn't changed her license yet? Use a CW.

I don't care if you have to stand in line for 14 hours to get an ID, that doesn't qualify as impossible in my book. I've never used a CW in Florida, because I believe that the method is reserved for absolutely extreme circumstances (such as an elsely person on their death bed). It should not be used simply because someone doesn't have the time to spend all day renewing their license. Of they have the physical ability to go to that DMV and get a license then it is not "difficult or impossible" to get one, and therefore no CWs.

Reply by CaliNotary on 8/22/10 3:50pm
Msg #350011

Re: In theory you're correct

"I don't care if you have to stand in line for 14 hours to get an ID, that doesn't qualify as impossible in my book."

It's obviously not impossible, because if it were, there wouldn't be all those people in line doing the exact same thing.

Reply by BobbiCT on 8/21/10 10:25am
Msg #349879

Over 48 Thousand Notaries Public ..

There's always more than one willing to take the risk. $$$ reward in hand better than following the letter of the law, particularly if you have no assets to lose or are transient. Don't renew your commission or move in a few years, it will be difficult to locate the notary. I still see many recorded documents where the witnesses and notary did NOT print their names under their illegible signatures - making it even more difficult or impossible to track them down if the document is contested.

Probably the same people who don't report this income on their tax return or when collecting unemployment (part-timers that have been laid off).

Reply by desktopfull on 8/21/10 12:21pm
Msg #349905

Your right, always someone out there to bend the rules

for their own purpose.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/21/10 11:31pm
Msg #349949

Re: Over 48 Thousand Notaries Public ..

That will vary by state, as well. It isn't that easy in CA, for example. We have to use a stamp that has our printed (and easily read) official name, as well as the county where our commission is recorded. Also, with the required background checks, the state probably has plenty enough information about us to be able to track down most notaries who want to go missing.

Your post is a pretty good justification for those measures, imo.