Posted by Tily on 5/1/10 2:54am
Msg #334460

Credible Witness

Not sure how to proceed.
Notarization involves loan modification forms. Principal is listed on loan docs under maiden name, however her I.D. is under her new married name. Loan company told her she needs to have a credible witness. I personally know the principal and the credible witness. Do I just put witness under oath and ask the questions from the handbook? There is no form for the CW correct? Also, I know the CW sign my book but should I also have the principal sign?

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/1/10 3:23am
Msg #334461

Don't know about CA, but in OR, CW must be ID'd, must

take an oath/affirmation from the notary, sign the journal and provide legal name and residence address - and be honest, competent, and impartial.

Principal would do likewise , as I am notarizing its signature.

Your mileage might vary, to quote a local sage, so I'd check your handbook.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/1/10 3:25am
Msg #334462

Principal would sign journal, I meant to say. n/m

Reply by Laurie_OR on 5/1/10 11:40pm
Msg #334562

Re: Don't know about CA, but in OR, CW must be ID'd, must

Oregon recently had some changes to the CW requriements, here is the excerpt from the updated manual:

Credible Witness—the notary personally knows someone who swears that he or she personally knows the signer. In order to use the credible witness as identification:
• The notary must personally know the witness.
• The witness must personally know the signer.
• Both witness and signer must be present during notarization.
• Witness must take an oath from notary. Sample oath/affirmation:
“Do you swear (or affirm) that you personally know this document signer to be the individual he/she claims to be (so help you God)?”
• Witness should sign the journal and provide his or her legal

What are the odds that I as a Notary personally know a witness that personally knows the signer?

Reply by Laurie_OR on 5/1/10 11:42pm
Msg #334563

Re: Don't know about CA, but in OR, CW must be ID'd, must

Sorry, clipped the tail end of that copy and paste!

• Witness should sign the journal and provide his or her legal name and residence address.
• Witness should be honest, competent, and impartial.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/3/10 12:17am
Msg #334632

For me, el zippo chance. n/m

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/1/10 3:46am
Msg #334465

<<Not sure how to proceed.
Notarization involves loan modification forms. Principal is listed on loan docs under maiden name, however her I.D. is under her new married name. Loan company told her she needs to have a credible witness. I personally know the principal and the credible witness. Do I just put witness under oath and ask the questions from the handbook? There is no form for the CW correct? Also, I know the CW sign my book but should I also have the principal sign?<<

A. It doesn't really matter that you personally know the principal.
B. It's required that you personally know the CW and that the CW personally knows the principal.
C. Yes, you give the CW an oath and ask the questions.
D. Not sure what you mean by a form for the CW? But no, I've never heard of a CW form.
E. The principal would sign your book because you are notarizing her signature.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 6:44am
Msg #334468

Page 8-9 of your handbook outline procedure for CW's

Page 14 has a sample ack for a Subscribing Witness identified with a CW - perhaps you can customize that one and use that for your purposes.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-handbook-2010.pdf

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/2/10 4:04pm
Msg #334610

We don't have the concept of a credible witness here, although I guess one could be used in a pinch since we're given a LOT of leeway as to what constitutes "satisfactory evidence" of ID. But I have to wonder - how often are you able to find a credible witness that you know and the signer also knows? I can see it happening in a small town, but what are the odds in a large metropolitan area?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 9:24am
Msg #334474

Hang on....

You need to clarify something about the witness --- is this witness named in the document, too? If so, you can't use him/her. You'll need to find somebody else who know both of you AND is not a party to the loan mod.

It doesn't matter if you know the other person or not. It simply needs to be somebody YOU know who also knows the person and can attest to her identity.

The process of using a CW is actually TWO different notarial acts, and will require TWO journal entries.

First, establish the identity of the witness as usual, with proper ID. Record this in your journal like normal... but when you indicate the type of act, simply put something like "Credible Witness oath for [name]."

Then you can say something like this:

"You are here to act as a credible witness for [person's name]. This means that you are acting in place of their official identification and are vouching for his/her identity. State law requires that in order to establish this person's identity, I need to have you swear or affirm to five questions. This means you are under oath and obligated to tell the truth, just as if you were sitting in a court room. Do you understand this?


1. Do you personally know the individual here with us? (They should say yes)
2. Is this individual the same person named in the document(s)? (They should say yes)
3. Does this person possess any of the identification documents that may be used to establish his/her identity as described in the document(s)? (They should say no)
4. Do you believe that it would be very difficult or impossible for this individual to obtain another form of identification showing the name in the document(s)? (They should say yes)
5. Are you named in the document(s) or do you have any financial interest related to the situation? (They should say no)


Create a new journal entry, but under the ID, make sure you write something like "Established by Credible Witness [name], under oath." At that point, and this is just a personal practice that I do, I have the Credible witness sign or initial right below that statement. So, in reality, the Credible witness is signing the journal TWICE... first on their entry, and then in the ID field where you might otherwise record the signer's ID information. Does that make sense?


You do not use any kind of special acknowledgment for a credible witness -- just proceed as normal. The only difference from a "standard" notarization is that the ID being used is a person, not a paper document. There should be no mention of the CW on the acknowledgment itself.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 9:33am
Msg #334475

Re: Hang on....

Let me add... that not all notaries will use two journal entries for this. I do. The handbook gives you some leeway with it:


"Note: The single credible witness must sign the notary public’s journal or the notary public
must indicate in his or her journal the type of identifying document, the identifying number of
the document, and the date of issuance or expiration of the document presented by the witness
to establish the identity of the witness. (Government Code section 8206(a)(2)(D))"

It says you can do one or the other... but I do both, even if I know them. Personally? I think the "OR" needs to be changed to "AND" and is a leftover that was missed from the "personally known" revamp a few years ago.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 4:45pm
Msg #334520

Please See my response to Lisa below! n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 10:01am
Msg #334479

Re: Hang on....

Luckily in Fla., our Credible Witness regulations are crystal clear. It can be either one CW personally known, or two CWs who produce ID, and the CW(s) must sign a sworn affidavit, in which they swear that they personally know the signer, that the person appearing before the notary is the signer, that the signer does not possess ID and it would be difficult/impossible for him to obtain it, and that they have no interest in the transaction.

In addition, our handbook directs that the CW affidavit be kept in the notary's records, rather than attached to the document being notarized. I have never done a CW, but if I ever did I would simply staple the affidavit into my journal over the entry.

Reply by PAW on 5/1/10 12:39pm
Msg #334495

Re: Hang on....

I'm surprised you haven't done credible witness signings. I don't do a lot, but do do them frequently, especially for the elderly in hospice care.

Reply by Tily on 5/1/10 11:39am
Msg #334486

Thank you for your help.

Reply by LKT/CA on 5/1/10 1:50pm
Msg #334502

Disagree with other responses

<<<Principal is listed on loan docs under maiden name, however her I.D. is under her new married name.>>>

She is only one person at a time - she is not Jane Jones (maiden name) *and* Jane Smith (married name) at the same time. The only way CWs should be used is if she is Jane Smith and docs said Jane Smith and she's without ID (and cannot get ID).

The loan company doesn't dictate notary law....only the SOS. This is "lecture time" to both the loan company and the lady, (i.e. pick a name and have your docs and ID match it.)

<<< I personally know the principal and the credible witness.>>>

Great and that means you only need one instead of two. This is not a case warranting CWs. CWs are when the client does not have ID - NOT when their ID name doesn't match the name on the docs.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/1/10 2:10pm
Msg #334505

Completely agree with Lisa

I cringe when I see messages that a notary has used credible witnesses, when the signer has ID but it doesn't match name on docs.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 2:16pm
Msg #334506

It's been my belief for a very long time

that the use of CW's is too loosely interpreted by many and CW's are used to "get it done" and that's it....

There's a reason the CW has to swear that it's difficult if not impossible for the signer to obtain ID - and IMO that doesn't mean it's inconvenient for them or too late to get it in time.

But that's just me..I've never used a CW in the four years I've been here in FL.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 2:16pm
Msg #334507

It's been my belief for a very long time

that the use of CW's is too loosely interpreted by many and CW's are used to "get it done" and that's it....

There's a reason the CW has to swear that it's difficult if not impossible for the signer to obtain ID - and IMO that doesn't mean it's inconvenient for them or too late to get it in time.

But that's just me..I've never used a CW in the four years I've been here in FL.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 2:17pm
Msg #334508

Ugh..sorry.... n/m

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/1/10 4:25pm
Msg #334518

Re: It's been my belief for a very long time

I had to use CW's a few weeks ago. Young lady needed to send for a copy of her birth certificate so she could get a replacement ID. Her purse had been stolen and she had no ID at all.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 6:09pm
Msg #334527

I use them all the time...

It's usually always the two witness option, though. I live near an ICE detention center, and guys from all over Los Angeles are sent to this facility for immigration issues. Many of the guys, obviously, lack any kind of ID and have no way of getting it.

In those case, it's necessary to bring in two CWs whom I meet at the detention Center. I also have their ICE officer print their "camp card" for me if they can.

A few months ago I had a guy who was at the facility who was trying to marry his girlfriend. As it turns out, he was born in Mexico and brought to the US by his parents when he was a baby. HIs parents lost his birth certificate, but he somehow managed to get a full education, including 2-years of community college.

However, he was never legal.... and he was cited a few times for driving w/o a license. The idiot never took care of the tickets, so the next time he was pulled over, he was arrested and now he's facing deportation. His GF said he doesn't know anybody in Mexico and all his family is in the States (illegally). He doesn't even speak Spanish very well because his parents forced their family to learn and speak English in their home.

So the guy has no ID, and because he was trying to get married (to avoid deportation)... he needed me to help him with an Inability to Appear Affidavit so they could get the marriage license. So, his GF had to get two witnesses with proper ID to schlep the 90 minutes up to the detention center. It was a big, huge hassle. But seriously... I do it about once a month out there. I think just about all the Sheriff's out there know me now. It's a bit weird when the guard at the gate knows you by name.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 6:21pm
Msg #334528

Marian..under these circumstances..I'd say you

DON'T use them *all the time* - you use them about once a month and only in certain specific instances...if you used them *all the time* you'd never request a driver's license or passport...

I'm referring to those who get married and don't get to motor vehicle for 10 years....or lost their license and, oh jeez, I've been so busy the last year and a half - that IMO is not what the CW principal is all about.

MHO

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 8:45pm
Msg #334556

Re: Marian..under these circumstances..I'd say you

Well, I guess I meant that compared to most notaries... I use them all the time. At least once a month at this facility anyway. Considering the hassle involved... once a month is enough.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 6:21pm
Msg #334529

Marian..under these circumstances..I'd say you

DON'T use them *all the time* - you use them about once a month and only in certain specific instances...if you used them *all the time* you'd never request a driver's license or passport...

I'm referring to those who get married and don't get to motor vehicle for 10 years....or lost their license and, oh jeez, I've been so busy the last year and a half - that IMO is not what the CW principal is all about.

MHO

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/10 4:45pm
Msg #334519

Lisa's right...

I totally blanked on that part of the situation. The procedure I detailed is for those that lack ID and cannot reasonably obtain it. Of course... that's one of things that the CW is swearing to.

I missed the part about having ID. As Lisa said, If her legal name is as on the ID --- then the documents should be changed to reflect that. A Credible witness in this case would be contradicting a legally acceptable ID.

The handbook states that the CW is swearing/affirming that, "The signer does not possess any of the identification documents authorized by law to establish the signer’s identity."

Well, in this case, the signer DOES posses the document... so the use of a CW is out.

I'm sorry that I misread the original post.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 7:56pm
Msg #334536

Here is a crazy thought...

How about, the people who draft these ridiculous loan docs make sure that the name matches the person's ID?! This issue comes up so often on this board and I can not believe that title companies are not addressing it.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 8:06pm
Msg #334540

Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

one's driver's license is issued - they're drawn in accordance with how someone took title when they acquired the property...not always the same...

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 8:23pm
Msg #334546

Re: Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

Then you use common sense. "Jane Smith, n/k/a Jane Doe, a married woman". Signature line says "Jane Smith, n/k/a Jane Doe", wife signs as Jane Doe and the acknowledgment is taken as Jane Doe.

Of course, in Florida we could always use the "Jane Doe, who represented to me that she was formerly known as Jane Smith". I am so glad that Florida allows us to do that.

I had a client I notarized for, on a motion to be filed with the court on a post-judgment divorce case. Listen to how ridiculous this one is:

- The woman's maiden name was Jane Marie Doe.
- When she married the husband in this divorce case, she became Jane Doe Smith.
- When she divorced the husband and remarried, she became Jane Marie Public.
- Her driver license says Jane Smith Public. Yes, the used her first husband's last name as her middle name on her D/L, rather than her maiden name (Doe) or her actual middle name (Marie). She has never gone by Jane Smith Public. This is just what the DMV designated her. The name she actually uses is Jane Marie Public.

When I notarized, she signed "Jane Marie Public", and I used, "Jane Marie Public, who represented to me that she is a/k/a Jane Smith Public, and who produced a FL Driver License in the name of Jane Smith Public as identification".

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 8:35pm
Msg #334549

Re: Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

Then your ack should have read ""Jane Smith Public, who represented to me that she is a/k/a Jane Marie Public, and who produced a FL Driver License in the name of Jane Smith Public as identification"

Page 61 of the manual.....

Other than your work-capacity knowldge of it, did she show you ANY ID in the name of Jane Marie Public? How do you know they're one and the same?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/10 8:36pm
Msg #334550

sorry....s/b "knowledge".... n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/1/10 8:38pm
Msg #334552

Re: Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

In my case it was work-capacity knowledge. I had her entire divorce file sitting on my desk, and knew the chain of name changes. But the woman does not use the name, and has never used the name, Jane Smith Public, even though that is what is on her driver license. She uses Jane Marie Public, and her representing that fact to me is sufficient without proving it, especially in this circumstance because I had more definite knowledge of the facts.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/1/10 9:09pm
Msg #334557

Robert, you've mentioned using the public records

as well as a case file to assure you know their identity sufficiently.

While I can certainly understand your reasoning, try as I might I do not find evidence that such is something that Florida notaries are allowed to use to identify a signer. What am I missing? To me, it seems that if you do use this then post about it that you should add a footnote that this is not Florida's statutory type of identity so that others who read this do not conclude that it is otherwise.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 5/1/10 10:52pm
Msg #334559

Re: Robert, you've mentioned using the public records

I believe he said he used the "represented to me" on the certificate.
If Jane Joan Doe is on the ID and docs are drawn up as Jane Smith Doe for instance. she can represent to me that she is AKA Jane Smith Doe. On the notary certificate I would put Jane Joan Doe who represented to me that she is also known as Jane Smith Doe.

This is allowed under Florida laws

We can't use public records or a case file to identify a signer, we can only use the accepted forms of ID.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/2/10 5:55am
Msg #334571

Re: Robert, you've mentioned using the public records

I was referring to the post in this thread and the mention of public records in post #334478.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/2/10 1:23am
Msg #334567

Re: Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

Yes, but if the LO checked ID right up front when they first took the application (assuming they knew what to look for), they would find out that the person no longer has ID to support how they took title. In many cases, that could be enough time to get a corrected DL before it's time to sign. In CA (and probably many other states), we don't have the option to use the "who represented to me" option.

Naturally, the most common incidence of this is where a couple buys a home just before they get married or before she gets around to changing her name. So title is in her maiden name, then five years later after her ID expires, they decide to sell and move or refinance, and lo and behold, she doesn't have proper ID. I agree, BTW, that this is not a situation where CWs would be appropriate in CA, since she already has another perfectly good ID - just not with the name that we need to see to ID her.

This is definitely something on my "If only..." list!

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/2/10 1:40am
Msg #334569

This would be on my wish list, too, getting rid of CWs

I imagine in the old days of Sourdough Slim or Digger, the Gold Miner, CWs were important. IDs may not have even been available or not uniform. Today, there're few excuses not to have a valid ID.
I, too, hate using CWs. If the ID doesn't match, lenders, TCs, SSs just expect us to have the signer round up a couple of CWs and get that loan closed! In my experience, the CW issue raises its ugly head most often in the instance JanetK just described. But worse, is when your borrowers are on their 2nd or 3rd refi and every previous notary has slam-dunked the signings - along with the notary who did the purchase - and all of a sudden I'm saying no-go cos the ID is way off. Then you hear the old "It's never been a problem before." Well - it's a problem now. Add to that: The clock is ticking on the rate lock; it's EOM and every LO is slobbering for his commission; you know the SS will never call you again if you hold up a signing over an errant MI. We've all been there. It's hard to walk away from the excited newlyweds who just want to move in their new house - but she's still ID'd with her maiden name and she signed up for the loan using her married name. But in CA there's not much we can do. Actually, what happens is they quickly find another notary!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/2/10 7:46am
Msg #334575

Re: Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

"but if the LO checked ID right up front when they first took the application (assuming they knew what to look for), they would find out that the person no longer has ID to support how they took title. In many cases, that could be enough time to get a corrected DL before it's time to sign"

True...but it's not their problem - it's a notary problem - as far as they're concerned the ID is irrelevant - as long as they sign as printed (which is usually how title is vested) they're happy campers - doing any corrective paperwork is out of the question as that's more work for them...most times - some are good and will do what's required. Otherwise lenders could care less - which is why we're told "you'll have an A/K/A Affidavit in the package with the name variations" ... ugh.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/3/10 1:01am
Msg #334635

Re: Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

It's my impression that Florida notary law may be more flexible on that issue than CA notary law. So in my state I feel it *should* be their problem - if they don't want to risk having their closing depend on finding a notary who will look the other way! If the notary does their job and refuses to notarize, the LO risks a rate lock expiration and the whole deal going south.

We can't put any capacity in the acknowledgment itself - and imo, that would include any FKA or WTTA type of statement. If you're talking about a completely different last name, that's not a grey area, imo, even if they have a rational explanation. Plain and simple, in these cases the ID either supports the name on the doc or not.

Reply by PAW on 5/2/10 7:06am
Msg #334574

Re: Because loan docs are not drawn according to how

Having been on the other side of the fence, both working for a lender and later working for a title plant, from experience the names that appear on the docs frequently come from two sources. Lenders, especially brokered loans, often use the name as entered on the 1003. Since this is entered by the applicant, chances are they use their 'common' name instead of their legal, ID'able name, if there's a difference. The other source is the title docs use the name as researched from the title search; the name as it appears in the last vesting of title. The latter scenario generates even more problems at times, since the name entered on the deed is made up by the title company. The 'buyer' or grantee often never sees the vesting until after the deed is filed and the vesting cast in the public records. Some title companies do require that the grantee see and initial acceptance of the grantee vesting. One company used to also require the grantee to sign the deed as grantee, so the deed would have both grantor and grantee signatures.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/2/10 8:25am
Msg #334576

Bottom line is...

It does not matter in Florida that the name on the ID exactly match the name on the document, even if the ID says "Jane Smith Doe" and the document says "Jane Marie Doe". As long as I am satisfied as to the person's identity, this is sufficient for me to notarize. The "more but not less" thing is, IMO, a myth created amongst notaries. At least in Florida.

If there is a major difference then the "who represented to me that she is also known as" is sufficient. However, I frequently have work-capacity knowledge as to the client's previous names, and that, to me, only strengthens the proof that they have been known by the two separate names. But even without that work-capacity knowledge, I can still notarize using the "who represented to me" language.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/2/10 8:39am
Msg #334581

Re: Bottom line is...

*The "more but not less" thing is, IMO, a myth created amongst notaries. At least in Florida.*

I think this is a myth, period.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/2/10 12:37pm
Msg #334596

It may be a myth ...

... but what would we do without it? (Esp. in CA where we don't have anything like the FL option "represented to me" ). If docs have: Throckmorton Gildersleeve, and his ID reads: Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve am I gonna walk away? I'd never get any loans signed, tho I think I remember a former CA uber notary (Kelly?) who frequently posted on the "other" site that names had to match exactly or she wouldn't notarize.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/2/10 12:41pm
Msg #334597

It goes both ways

If the ID says "Throckmorton Gildersleeve" but the document says "Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve", would you notarize? I would. There is no law saying that notarization can not be performed if the doc has more name than the ID.

The chances that the man appearing before me is actually Throckmorton S. Gildersleeve, but he happened to steal the ID of someone else named Throckmorton P. Gildersleeve who happens to look just like him just because he wanted to take out a loan in this guy's name, are few and far between. That seems like paranoia to me.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/2/10 1:10pm
Msg #334604

Re: It goes both ways

You may be right, it may be paranoia, maybe the "myth" should go both ways, but if the docs had P. as a MI, then it's a no-go, because the docs are introducing a whole new name for which Mr. Gildersleeve has no ID, which is somewhat different than the docs dropping a name for which he does have ID.

Anyway, your last graph is absolutely true (except maybe the "paranoia" part.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/2/10 4:17pm
Msg #334611

Goldgirl, I once "assumed" that the more/less myth/legend

was a California thing...that it was in the notary rules of Ca.

JanetK set me straight on that.

I don't see how a California notary could do as many as 50% of their loans if the more/less rule was in effect. Do you really get that much accuracy between the names on the docs vs. the name on ID?

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/2/10 6:25pm
Msg #334615

I think the more/less myth...

...is the product of the XYZ training machine.

When I was just starting out - and too stupid to know any better - I took a live local XYZ course on how to become a signing agent. The trainer spent 10-20 minutes going through the whole more/less thing, and even more time explaining what a credible witness was; I was sitting there wondering WTH she was talking about, because NONE of it was relevant to NY notary law. And as I looked around the room, I noticed that other people (sheeple?) were furiously writing notes...

My guess is that it was started by the XYZ, and they've been trying to promulgate it nationwide, much like their "Model Notary Act". I'm not aware of any state that requires this more/less thing when it comes to ID; someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/2/10 6:56pm
Msg #334616

This sounds like a good question for Marian

or other well-informed CA notaries. I have no idea how it got started. At first, I wanted to agree with MikeC that it's an XYZ thing ... but I'm not sure. I'm positive it's not codified in the CA handbook, but in the classes we're required to take, it was always a part of the "curriculum." And there was always a related question or two on the CA test. The education vendors and their curriculum are highly regulated by the SOS as is the test, so this "myth" or guideline or rule of thumb ot whatever we call it, is part of CA notary practices, as far as I can see. Maybe it's CA's answer to FL's "represented to me" or other states' flexibility in allowing notaries to use their judgment or perponderance of evidence or whatever ....

Reply by GWest on 5/2/10 7:28pm
Msg #334618

Response from CA SOS

This is a different situation from the one starting this thread, but I believe addresses the issue of the name matching the person's ID. After discussion with a few another notary's in the area, I had contacted the CA SOS not long ago with regard to nicknames that don't match their ID.
The CA SOS response was as follows:
"The law states that "satisfactory evidence" means the absence of any information, evidence, or other circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person making the acknowledgment is not the individual he or she claims to be. You may consider asking for another acceptable form of identification. However, if you are not comfortable with the identification, you may refuse the notarization".

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/2/10 7:35pm
Msg #334619

Re: Response from CA SOS - thank you, GWest!

That sounds so reasonable.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/3/10 1:47am
Msg #334636

Re: Response from CA SOS

I think middle/maiden names are where the gray areas come into play, and that in some way relates to the "more/less" rule or whatever you want to call it. (I think it's more a generally accepted principle than anything else.) If there's something on the document that is not on the ID, it begins to raise a question about whether or not this is "information, evidence, or other circumstances" that something is off. It may be a red flag, or it may just be something that requires further examination.

I read somewhere that identity fraud is most common between family members. And if you consider that it's common for fathers and sons to have the same or very similar names (except perhaps for a middle initial or a nickname variation), you then have the possibility that maybe there's a person other than the one in front of you with that same name who does/does not have that middle initial or name. (This could also be the case for someone who isn't in the same family.) I wouldn't feel the same way about something on the ID that isn't on the document because it could have simply not been used.

Perhaps it isn't very likely, but stranger things have happened. So it follows, then, that you don't really know for sure, just by looking at the ID if you do in fact have the same person in front of you who is named in the document when there's an extra initial or name shown there that isn't supported by ID. What if you have a son who is trying to cash out (or whatever) from a property that is in fact owned by this father?

In these cases, I tend to go "off script", and ask for something to corroborate what is in front of me so that I have a high level of confidence. For example, I recently had a situation with a woman where her trust was in a name she never uses (first name, given middle name, last name), and the middle name was different on her ID. It was one of those situations like you see in Florida where her real middle name was on the trust, but she used her maiden name as middle name on nearly everything, plus there was a previous married name involved somewhere.

She was able to pull out a string of Social Security cards showing a daisy chain of all the different names that were involved, with the signature pretty clearly matching hers. (She also had a bunch of other stuff, marriage certificates, etc.) So I felt very comfortable proceeding. (BTW, the first name and last name on the ID matched what was on the docs.)

I'm just sayin'...

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/2/10 6:56pm
Msg #334617

Re: I think the more/less myth...

I agree, Mike. I don't see how having MORE can be anything different than having LESS.

Reply by Robert/FL on 5/2/10 7:36pm
Msg #334620

Re: I think the more/less myth...

As long as we as notaries are satisfied that the documents presented sufficiently prove the person's identity, that should be sufficient. In Florida, we have the maiden/middle issue on driver licenses, especially with older women. If we were to be sticklers about the more/less thing, we would never get anything notarized IMO.