Posted by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 1:33am
Msg #346397
Can you top this?
At a signing today, wife pulled out an AZ Drivers license that expired in March, 2008. She really wanted me to believe that DMV made the error and refused to make her a new card. They showed her that it was in the system as being valid until 2012 and that if she were stopped by a police officer, it would show up in the computer as a valid DL. DMV even gave her a letter to prove it. Wowie! I told her no can do unless she could have a friend or neighbor with a valid ID be a credible witness. She was upset, but managed to call in a neighbor with a valid ID.
All's well that ends well.
|
Reply by Ardel Richter on 7/27/10 6:42am
Msg #346401
'Miss Smith, a single woman' (and only signer/B on docs), after introducing me to her husband, Mr. Jones, presents the photo half of a cut in half DL that (from photo) had to be 20 or more years old. This did not end well. When reporting 'no ID/no sign' to SS, they couldn't understand why I'd walked.
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 8:29am
Msg #346406
Does your state allow the use of credible witnesses?
I have a sad one to tell you about. It was a refi back in CA about 6 years ago. Woman said she had no ID. She finally produced a paper from the local PD that was a receipt for her DL. She had another DUI and they took away her license. She never got a state ID. I told her we needed credible witnesses. she said "at this hour"? (It was only 9 PM.) I said, yes, if you want to refinance your house. She sat across from me at a car table and you could smell her breath. Very sad.
|
Reply by Ardel Richter on 7/27/10 10:07am
Msg #346419
No, CWs not allowed. Have some leeway, but not that much. Meaning, if DL has only middle initial and docs have whole 9 yards, if they can show me like a birth cert with whole 9 yards, it's a 'can do'.
|
Reply by MW/VA on 7/27/10 8:35am
Msg #346407
There's so much tension in AZ about ID's right now anyway. IMO it's interesting what some people consider a valid ID. Maybe current is a better phrase to use.
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 10:19am
Msg #346421
What do you mean?
Tension in Az about IDs? No more than anywhere else. As of July 31 we will be permitted to accept TX and VA driver's licenses. All but the most astute notaies probably accepted them anyway.
|
Reply by jba/fl on 7/27/10 10:27am
Msg #346423
Re: What do you mean?
Sho-sha (I see her swaying to a lilting breeze on a torrid summer morning)
Are you only supposed to accept certain state's ids right now? (As of July 31 we will be permitted to accept TX and VA driver's licenses) I hadn't heard of that, just curious.
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 9:32pm
Msg #346526
Where is that breeze?
Inquiring minds want to know!
|
Reply by paaz on 7/27/10 2:35pm
Msg #346458
Re: Acceptable ID for Arizona - Shoshanna correct!
Shoshanna is right! According to current Arizona law, we cannot accept TX or VA driver's licenses. Texas does not meet the criteria because it is lacking the color of hair and Virginia does not meet the criteria because it does not have a picture. These are both listed as minimum requirements for identification.
Effective July 31, we will be able to accept any valid driver's licensed issued in the United States.
|
Reply by CopperheadVA on 7/27/10 2:58pm
Msg #346461
Re: Acceptable ID for Arizona - Shoshanna correct!
<< Virginia does not meet the criteria because it does not have a picture >>
??? Virginia licenses do indeed have a picture, and have for many years.
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 9:27pm
Msg #346522
It might be missing one of the descriptive elements such as:
hair color, eye color, height or weight. That's what I was told.
|
Reply by CopperheadVA on 7/28/10 6:20am
Msg #346551
VA licenses do not have hair color or weight, they do have
eye color, height, and photo.
|
Reply by Cari on 7/27/10 10:28am
Msg #346425
why couldn't she just go to the DMV and say she lost it?
wouldn't they have to give her or reissue her another one with the correct expiration date?
|
Reply by pat/WA on 7/27/10 10:33am
Msg #346429
Re: why couldn't she just go to the DMV and say she lost it?
I thought a credible witness had to be known both to the signer and to the notary.
|
Reply by Philip Johnson on 7/27/10 11:51am
Msg #346438
Pat here in WA you can choose which to follow
Personally for me I choose the latter
WAC 308-30-155
No agency filings affecting this section since 2003
Satisfactory evidence of identity.
Satisfactory evidence of an individual identity shall be based on one of the following:
(1) Current documents issued by a federal or state government with the individual's photograph, signature, and physical description.
(2) The oath or affirmation of a credible person who personally knows the individual.
OR
RCW 42.44.080
Standards for notarial acts.
A notary public is authorized to perform notarial acts in this state. Notarial acts shall be performed in accordance with the following, as applicable:
(1) In taking an acknowledgment, a notary public must determine and certify, either from personal knowledge or from satisfactory evidence, that the person appearing before the notary public and making the acknowledgement is the person whose true signature is on the document.
(2) In taking an acknowledgment authorized by RCW 64.08.100 from a person physically unable to sign his or her name or make a mark, a notary public shall, in addition to other requirements for taking an acknowledgment, determine and certify from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence that the person appearing before the notary public is physically unable to sign his or her name or make a mark and is otherwise competent. The notary public shall include in the acknowledgment a statement that the signature in the acknowledgment was obtained under the authority of RCW 64.08.100.
(3) In taking a verification upon oath or affirmation, a notary public must determine, either from personal knowledge or from satisfactory evidence, that the person appearing before the notary public and making the verification is the person whose true signature is on the statement verified.
(4) In witnessing or attesting a signature, a notary public must determine, either from personal knowledge or from satisfactory evidence, that the signature is that of the person appearing before the notary public and named in the document.
(5) In certifying or attesting a copy of a document or other item, a notary public must determine that the proffered copy is a full, true, and accurate transcription or reproduction of that which was copied.
(6) In making or noting a protest of a negotiable instrument, a notary public must determine the matters set forth in *RCW 62A.3-509.
(7) In certifying that an event has occurred or an act has been performed, a notary public must determine the occurrence or performance either from personal knowledge or from satisfactory evidence based upon the oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally known to the notary public.
(8) A notary public has satisfactory evidence that a person is the person described in a document if that person: (a) Is personally known to the notary public; (b) is identified upon the oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally known to the notary public; or (c) is identified on the basis of identification documents.
(9) The signature and seal or stamp of a notary public are prima facie evidence that the signature of the notary is genuine and that the person is a notary public.
|
Reply by pat/WA on 7/27/10 2:43pm
Msg #346459
Re: Pat here in WA you can choose which to follow
I have always required that the credible witness be known to me and not just someone the signer pulled off the street.
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 9:30pm
Msg #346524
That's not required in AZ.
As long as they know the signer and the CW has a valid ID, that works here.
|
Reply by Michelle/AL on 7/27/10 11:45am
Msg #346437
@Cari, then she would've had to pay another fee.
IF the BO was being truthful it sounds as if she was being cheap or couldn't afford the replacement fee. Obviously she forgot the need to have valid/current ID. I hope she doesn't plan on taking an airplane anywhere anytime soon.
|
Reply by Ali/IL on 7/27/10 12:11pm
Msg #346441
Re: @Cari, then she would've had to pay another fee.
I struggle with these matricula cards out of Mexico. I really don't want to take them. People are becoming so flexible just for the buck.
|
Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/27/10 12:24pm
Msg #346444
I struggle with these matricula cards out of Mexico
Per Illinois Notary Act secion 6.101
"(d) A notary public has satisfactory evidence that a person is the person whose
true signature is on a document if that person:
(1) is personally known to the notary;
(2) is identified upon the oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally
known to the notary; or
(3) is identified on the basis of identification documents. Until July 1, 2013,
identification documents are documents that are valid at the time of the
notarial act, issued by a state or federal government agency, and bearing
the photographic image of the individualʼs face and signature of the individual"
IMO, at this time we can only accept a current ID issued by a State or Federal Agency bearing picture and signature.
|
Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/27/10 1:44pm
Msg #346450
Re: I struggle with these matricula cards out of Mexico
For years, certain individuals in CA have been trying to force notaries to accept Matricula cards. It passed the state and senate last year... but the Governor was smart and vetoed it citing the fact that the Federal Government doesn't consider them to be all that credible...not to mention the fact that Mexican citizens have other forms of acceptable ID they can use, such as Drivers licenses and passports.
The Governor's veto message is here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_442_vt_20091011.html
I just hope they don't try to put this through again with a new Governor... because then we'll end up accepting it. Those things are WAY, WAY easy to fake.
|
Reply by Yoli/CA on 7/27/10 12:37pm
Msg #346446
Re: @Cari, then she would've had to pay another fee.
At signing on Saturday, Mrs. borrower only had matricula consular card. Mr. was fine with CA DL. They were able to call in 2 credible witnesses for Mrs. and we were good to go. Matriculas are not allowed as valid ID in CA.
|
Reply by Cari on 7/27/10 2:00pm
Msg #346453
the matricular IDs not allowed as valid ID in IL either... n/m
|
Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 7/27/10 1:53pm
Msg #346451
@ Ali, you can not accept them...not any more, remember
our laws changed last June....only state id, driver's license and US (not foreign) but US passport.
You can land yourself in a whole heap of trouble....I'd stop accepting those as they are no longer valid.
You can accept permanent residence cards or other USCIS issued immigration id s, but NOT the matricular. I've lost alot of business to my spanish speaking clients, but them is the breaks.
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 9:28pm
Msg #346523
You're assuming she has a brain. n/m
|
Reply by Ali/IL on 7/27/10 10:57pm
Msg #346532
Re: You're assuming she has a brain.
Are you talking about me?Shoshana?
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 11:19pm
Msg #346533
My post ended up in the wrong place.
I was referring to my borrower. Cari asked why didn't she just go down to DMV and say she lost it? Yikes, why would I say that about you?
|
Reply by Ali/IL on 7/27/10 11:32pm
Msg #346535
Re: My post ended up in the wrong place.
I know Shoshana but,thought I would ask.
|
Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 7/27/10 11:41pm
Msg #346537
Why would you make an issue of it on the board?
If you know, why would you ask? You could have PM'd me.
|
Reply by Ali/IL on 7/28/10 12:29am
Msg #346539
Re: Why would you make an issue of it on the board?
Oh my I am not going to continue here or in pm.
|
