Posted by Buc on 11/26/10 6:25pm
Msg #362821

arguement

Please settle an arguement for me.
When the title is vested S. Stephen Jones aka Stephen Jones and the borrower signs S. Stephen Jones aka Stephen Jones, should the notary block read I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that S. Stephen Jones aka Stephen Jones is the person who appeared before me?
or
is S. Stephen Jones enough without the aka?

Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 11/26/10 6:32pm
Msg #362822

AKA the acknowledgement

Reply by Buc on 11/26/10 6:34pm
Msg #362823

Thank you

Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 11/26/10 6:35pm
Msg #362825

No Worries

Reply by Ilene C. Seidel on 11/26/10 6:34pm
Msg #362824

Argument

Reply by Buc on 11/26/10 6:37pm
Msg #362827

I know argument. Finger type faster than my brain.

Reply by HisHughness on 11/26/10 6:55pm
Msg #362828

***Finger type faster than my brain.***

Wow! How fast does your brain type? I thought I was doing good to hit an occasional letter with my nose.

Reply by L.G (Buc) Alboucq on 11/26/10 7:06pm
Msg #362831

Re: argument

Now for the sake of argument -
You are asked to go back out and resign documents due to notary error. And the borrowers are asked to date the documents with the original date. How do you date the notary acknowledgment.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 11/26/10 7:14pm
Msg #362833

No argument, you use the current date n/m

Reply by L.G (Buc) Alboucq on 11/26/10 7:26pm
Msg #362834

Re: No argument, you use the current date

Then do you advise the borrower to date the documents for the original date and you date the notary acknowledgement the current date?

Reply by LKT/CA on 11/26/10 7:41pm
Msg #362835

Re: No argument, you use the current date - OBSERVATION

Notary certs are dated the day the signer appears before you and that the document dates are not the Notary's concern. Also, your acknowledgments are filled out per your states laws. CA is different from the other states that can use AKA's.....we cannot. Only the signer's name per their ID goes in the notary cert - no AKAs or titles can go there, but that's CA. But that's "notary 101".

Are you married to Pat/WA? I've seen both of your posts for over a year now and both of you ask newbie questions.....OR you ask a question, then the next day ask the same question (as if you didn't ask the question the day before)....OR one will ask a question, and the other will post a variation of that question (i.e. (A) Have you ever stopped a signing due to under the influence borrowers?......(B) When have you stopped a signing?).

Just my observation.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/26/10 8:16pm
Msg #362838

What on the ID? You don't mention that..

Also, refer to your notary handbook...or your SOS - are you allowed to put "a/k/a" in your notary certs?

Your SOS or your handbook/state laws govern how you handle your notary certificates - not the SS or TC....

Reply by L.G (Buc) Alboucq on 11/26/10 8:24pm
Msg #362842

Re: What on the ID? You don't mention that..

Washington State notary law does not state if you can use an aka on your notary cert.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/26/10 8:31pm
Msg #362844

Okay..well, this is just me...but

without anything in my laws saying I can put a/k/a in the cert, the only way I'd include both names is if they showed ID for both - otherwise the name in my cert would be the name on the ID as that's the person standing in front of me.

Unless the ID is sufficient enough for you to determine that they should be one and the same...i.e. John James Doe on ID, J. James Doe a/k/a John J. Doe on document.

MHO

Reply by OR on 11/26/10 9:46pm
Msg #362847

Re: Okay..well, this is just me...but

I totally agree with Linda. I had a title co complain once that I did not put all the AKA in my acknowledgment. I have never had one complain that I put them in. Now I always put them in.

Reply by LMS on 11/27/10 12:11am
Msg #362852

Re: Okay..well, this is just me...but

In Oregon you can put the AKA, as long as they had acceptable ID with AKA, if not, you can't. I had one the other day as a matter of fact where he had legally shortened his first name and the docs had the new version of his name (as did his ID) with AKA his "old" name. Could only put the new shortened version in the ack.
In the case of the OP that would be ok as long as the ID said, S Stephen Jones. Both versions are contained in the ID.

Reply by Virginia/PA on 11/26/10 11:36pm
Msg #362850

Re: Okay..well, this is just me...but

I agree. If you haven't identified the person using a particular variation of their name, how can you notarize their name in any other form than what you have identified them? As an example, the a/k/a statement in most loan packages has the borrower sign several different ways, but the acknowledgement certificate only has their name as it appears in the rest of the loan documents and is the way that they have been identified.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 11/27/10 8:58am
Msg #362860

Re: Okay..well, this is just me...but

I literally only acknowledge what I know to be true. So if they have an AKA and I don't see and ID with the AKA, I only state the one on ID's.
F/K/A's, which are more common with women, is the same.

Reply by Jodith Allen on 11/28/10 4:35pm
Msg #362956

Re: Okay..well, this is just me...but

Isn't this what the name certification/signature affidavit is for? The borrower certifies any aka's. We use what's on the ID for our cert, and the title company has the client's certification that they are the person on the ID is the same as the one on the aka. I always try to make sure the aka page includes the name as it appears on the ID.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 11/27/10 11:08am
Msg #362871

The way the I look at Notary Public ID laws. FWIW

As NPs, we are bound to follow the letter of our state's NP laws, which may
or may not , be the same thing that you were taught is notary class. ( I never took such a
class, and , so far as I know they were not even offered in IL when I received my first commission. )
Our job as a NP and as a NSA is to determine ( in accordance with applicable law ) if the person signing the dox is the same person who has an interest in the PIQ and also is the
person to whom the lender intends to make the loan.
Very few, if any , state's NP laws state the the name as shown on the ID must match up exactly with the name as typed on the document to be notarized.
The singer is not walking up to you on the strret to have you notarize a document that he has.
We normally print and bring the dox to signer's home , following a long and complicated vetting process by the lender.
Notarizaion is not a contest to see how the DMV put the signer's name on his DL. It is to use
reasonable discretion, in accordance with applicable law, to detemine if the person signing is the person intended by the lender to sign the dox.
And , yes, I am aware that this is not specifically what was asked by the OP.

Reply by SReis on 11/27/10 2:21pm
Msg #362878

I would have to disagree Bob.

For instance I had a closing the other day that had a totally different last name on the docs than what the id stated. Wife says they have signed before & had no issues. Id has "maiden" & docs have "married." After a little more prodding find out that wife actually never legally changed her name & that, in fact, her legal name was what was on her id NOT on the docs. Told title. They ended up just sending someone out on a different day w/o correcting the docs. I think if things do not match up then you are opening yourself up to some serious litigation if something goes wrong in the future. Believe me, people will look for ANY reason to get out of things & will pt their fingers at anyone they can.

BTW, if it really doesn't matter what is on their id than why do ALL notary laws require such id?

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/27/10 2:38pm
Msg #362880

Amen, Bob...if I don't think that the right person

is before me and signing the loan documents I am going to call the police and report fraud.

If they hold themselves out to me as Person On Documents, I am going to look at their ID and make a decision on whether or not they are the right person, or a criminal. There's no two ways about it. They either ARE that person, or they ARE NOT that person. Once I have looked at the DL, I might ask for a little more information, or might not.

If I don't think they are Person On Documents, I'm going to make up a plausible excuse and get the heck out of there without discussing it with them.

*...not a contest to see how the DMV put the signer's name on his DL...,* AMEN, brother.

Reply by kathy/ca on 11/27/10 8:07pm
Msg #362891

What Bob said is why I feel more comfortable doing loan.....

signings than general notary work. An interested party (Lender/title co.) was involved in the process before I ws involved.

Bob said: "Very few, if any , state's NP laws state the the name as shown on the ID must match up exactly with the name as typed on the document to be notarized.
The singer is not walking up to you on the strret to have you notarize a document that he has.
We normally print and bring the dox to signer's home , following a long and complicated vetting process by the lender".

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/27/10 11:21pm
Msg #362900

I agree with you and Bob on the history of the signer, but

I was a notary for a long time before I was a signing agent.

When the signer comes to you for a general notarization, they give you ID and then sign like the ID says, as long as a title co. or lender is not involved. They are the ones with the desire for the name signed a certain way.

I do a lot of general notarizations each week. Matching documents to DLs is not a problem. They sign however they signed their ID and that's that.

IMHO, the notary's job was never to make an ID match a document. The Texas notary's job is to figure out who was in front of them and to see them sign a document, then make a record in their journal of WHO appeared before them to declare they were the right person to sign the document and they were signing it for the purpose therein.

The Perfect Match has never been an issue for people who were notaries before loan document signing. Those who became notaries and were paired with loan documents immediately didn't have a habit of first the person is being identified, declaring they are the right person to sign, and then signing documents.

It's not that the documents come first, then the issue of the ID matching next. It's backwards. The person always came before the documents. Now, the documents come before the person. Cart before the horse.

I probably said that badly, but it's late.

Reply by LKT/CA on 11/28/10 1:18am
Msg #362902

Re: I agree with you and Bob on the history of the signer, but

<<<IMHO, the notary's job was never to make an ID match a document.......The Perfect Match has never been an issue for people who were notaries before loan document signing.>>>

I became a Notary to just be a Notary. Only after I took a live class did I learn about loan signing, which was a separate class/workshop altogether. Never was it taught, nor was I given the impression and never did the handbook make a "disconnect" between the signer, their ID and the paperwork.

<<<It's not that the documents come first, then the issue of the ID matching next. It's backwards. The person always came before the documents. Now, the documents come before the person. Cart before the horse. >>>

I remember the rare times I had my signature notarized, and one particular time probably about 15 years ago, the first thing the Notary wanted to see was the paperwork. She was reading it and, not really wanting her to know my business, I asked her why she had to read it. She told me she needed to see what her seal and signature would go on. There was not much I could say, I just (internally) wanted her to hurry up the process as again, I didn't want her "knowing my business".

CA notary law says the person appearing before the Notary must be the person "named in the document". Also, CA Notaries cannot be named in the document nor have a financial interest. We must review paperwork for blanks and incompleteness - which then makes the notarization lawful. Until the document is addressed, we do not know if we even have a lawful request. No point in taking ID and watching someone sign if request is not lawful. Also, in CA we must be able to communicate directly with the signer to ensure that yes, they understand what they are signing and yes, they are freely signing the paperwork.

Once I established that the request is lawful, only then can steps two, three and four (collect ID, enter info in journal, watch person sign) commence. Many times, I have informed customers during the initial call to have their paperwork completed minus the signature before the appointment. When I arrive at the appointment they have not completed the paperwork as I've asked. Until their paperwork is complete, it is not a lawful request....Or they hand me the signature page 10 and bypass pages 1 thru 9. Until I have in my hands and can scan all 10 pages for blanks, it is not a lawful request.

It has never been my impression/training/conclusion that there is a disconnect between the signer, their ID and the paperwork. I know others have said that the paperwork doesn't matter, only the person appearing before them and their ID matter, but I vehemently disagree with that notion. A lawful notarial request must be established BEFORE the notarization can take place. I want to see the paperwork FIRST to ensure we have a lawful request before I continue with journaling their ID and watching the customer sign the document. And even though I ask a ton of questions during the initial phone call, it doesn't ensure that I have a lawful request. Reviewing the paperwork and speaking with the customer (first) does.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/10 9:35am
Msg #362909

LKT

In Texas, we let the signer know of the importance of the act, we look at their evidence of ID, and the signer declares that his or her purposes, identifcation, and signature are genuine. Our journal, if properly kept, provides evidence of this.

Re-read my post, and then section 1185 of your code on how to ID a signer. Also, check page 8 & 9 of your handbook. Find the parts that discuss "satisfactory evidence" and "reasonable reliance".

I never said that the documents don't matter.

I said that the id documents don't have to match and that notaries have been trained to look at this backwards.

The ID they often desire does not exist (and, as your law says, they must use reasonable reliance and understand satisfactory evidence). The person's identify must be established, not a perfect match.

As an aside, after reading all the requirements and the line questioning you have to assure that you FIRST have a "lawful request", I can see how different we are. I don't consider that a criminal has called or appeared. I assume that they are sincere until proven otherwise.

As a notary, I serve the person in front of me (the public) and the State of Texas. I don't assume that I don't have a lawful request before engaging my client/signer. If so, it will be apparent as the transaction goes on and there is a natural flow of conversation. Different styles, different perceptions.

Reply by LKT/CA on 11/28/10 12:48pm
Msg #362923

Re: LKT

<<<I never said that the documents don't matter......I said that the id documents don't have to match and that notaries have been trained to look at this backwards.>>>

I never said you said that the documents don't matter. I was showing how the document (as far as I've known, and long before the mobile NSA came on the scene) has (and should) come first and why believed that.

As far as names on ID matching docs exactly, I agree if you mean Jane Marie Doe vs. Jane M. Doe but if you mean Jane Marie Doe vs. Jane Doe Smith, then I don't agree. I know what satisfactory evidence means and I also haven't found anything in the handbook that says we can use additional paperwork to "marry" the government issued ID with this secondary paperwork.

<<<I don't consider that a criminal has called or appeared. I assume that they are sincere until proven otherwise. >>>

Some people have no idea what a Notary's duties and/limits are so out of ignorance they ask for services our laws don't allow, such as the following: I need my birth certificate notarized....OR, here's the signature page, do you need to see the other 5 pages?.....Or, I'm not sure how to fill this out so I waited for you to help me.....OR, My family member has trouble signing, so I'll just "help" them out and hold the pen with them. Has nothing to do with anyone being a criminal - they simply don't know our duties/rules/limitations. So I educate them on what I can and cannot do per the notary laws.

<<<Different styles, different perceptions.>>>

Okay.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/10 4:15pm
Msg #362952

Re: LKT

* I know what satisfactory evidence means and I also haven't found anything in the handbook that says we can use additional paperwork to "marry" the government issued ID with this secondary paperwork. *

Agree. Section 1185 says you have to use reasonable reliance on the statutory ID documents, plus there must be an absence of evidence, info or circumstances that would make a reasonable person think that the signer is a liar.

I interpret reasonable reliance to mean just that. Is it reasonable to conclude that the woman has taken a married name at the end of her name? Can I rely on Jane Doe Smith who is willing to sign my journal and let me look at her DL or passport?

If the law meant for you to perfectly match the ID wouldn't it say that? Reasonable reliance means using one's reasoning ability before relying on it it.

So, I would say that Jane Marie Doe and Jane Doe Smith give me reasonable reliance on the person's identity, unless I have evidence that she is lying.

If the ID looked like it was authentic, with a picture and signature, I would do it.

Fraud? My position on that is if a person wanted to commit fraud what are the chances that they would find a form of ID that helped them do this very thing with a half match?

And, if it is not authentic ID, then why wouldn't they do it so that the darn thing would match in the first place?

Reply by LKT/CA on 11/28/10 1:01pm
Msg #362926

To Add

Regarding "marrying" identity by secondary paperwork: We are only one person at a time. A signer WAS Jane Marie Doe and NOW is Jane Doe Smith or vice versa. She IS one and WAS the other. She isn't both at once and needs to pick one. Whichever one she picks is the ONE who is signing and that ID must "support" the paperwork such as Jane Marie Doe on ID and Jane M. Doe on paperwork. As far as I'm concerned, Jane Marie Doe and Jane Doe Smith are two different people.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/10 3:53pm
Msg #362950

If only it were that simple, LKT.

*She IS one and WAS the other.*

If only it were that simple. It would probably be a good idea for you to consult an attorney about that statement because you are talking about a legal matter.

What you have stated is your *policy*, it's not mentioned in law anywhere that I can find. I would recommend that California readers consult an attorney before adopting this view, or better yet, forget this discussion and refer to Section 1185 of the California Civil Code to read about identifying signers through reasonable reliance and satisfactory evidence. Page 8 and 9 of the Ca. Notary Handbook also discusses identifying signers.

Your policy ("She isn't both at once and needs to pick one.") opposes the opinions and practices of attorneys, lenders, title companies, and county clerks. They, and most notaries, recognize that people may have more than one name in legal matters.

Reply by LKT/CA on 11/28/10 5:47pm
Msg #362967

Re: If only it were that simple, LKT.

<<<If only it were that simple. It would probably be a good idea for you to consult an attorney about that statement because you are talking about a legal matter.>>>

I network with several attorneys, don't need any consult on this subject. Nice try to pick out the portion of the civil code you wish to make your point. Civil code 1185 (3) addresses the ID documents the Notary is to use. Attempting to school me on CA notary law, well, is a lost cause. I know it better than you think I know it.

<<<What you have stated is your *policy*>>>>

Your (incorrect) guess that it is *my* policy. Again, I know quite a few attorneys. You think this thread is the first time I'm dealing with this issue?

<<<Your policy ("She isn't both at once and needs to pick one.") opposes the opinions and practices of attorneys, lenders, title companies, and county clerks.>>>

You want to label this *my policy* without foundation. What TCs, lenders, county clerks and other do is by their rules. We constantly have threads where the TC wants the Notary to connect names via and AKA statement which is for THEIR record keeping and we know the Notary cannot identify a signer via an AKA statement.

Disagree with your entire post. Again, for the purposes of notarization, you are one person ONLY. Pick who you are and present ID in that name.

I suggest that California Notaries listen to California Notaries. If you're going to quote Civil Code, quote ALL of the Civil Code, not what suits your statements.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/28/10 8:39pm
Msg #362985

Re: If only it were that simple, LKT.

*Again, for the purposes of notarization, you are one person ONLY. Pick who you are and present ID in that name.*

Prove me wrong. Show me where your got the legal foundation for your ONE name for notarization purposes premise.

What if a person owns property in the maiden name, and in the married name, as well. Does that mean that they must pick one name for notarization purposes and then never be able to sell the property that is in the other name?

What you are saying is not practical.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/29/10 11:25am
Msg #363022

LKT - Cal. Civ. Proc. Code �1279.6.

I didn't come up with this, someone else shared it with me in association with our discussion on "ONE name for notary purposes" and "She WAS Jane Marie Doe but NOW she IS Jane Doe Smith."

Apparently, aliases & AKAs are quite common in California, just like in Texas...so much that the law addresses it to assure that people are not penalized for...well, you can read it yourself.


Make of it what you will, or not.


Section 1279.6. (Amended by Stats. 2007, Ch. 567, Sec. 3.)
Cite as: Cal. Civ. Proc. Code �1279.6.

No person engaged in a trade or business of any kind or in the provision of a service of any kind shall do any of the following:

(a)Refuse to do business with a person, or refuse to provide the service to a person, regardless of the person�s marital status, because he or she has chosen to use or regularly uses his or her birth name, former name, or name adopted upon solemnization of marriage or registration of domestic partnership.

(b)Impose, as a condition of doing business with a person, or as a condition of providing the service to a person, a requirement that the person, regardless of his or her marital status, use a name other than his or her birth name, former name, or name adopted upon solemnization of marriage or registration of domestic partnership, if the person has chosen to use or regularly uses that name.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/28/10 2:32pm
Msg #362942

Absolutely agree, Bob and Brenda! Very well said. n/m