Posted by SOCAL/CA on 9/23/10 9:52am
Msg #353572

CA ID issue

Borrower's ID is "Johnny Borrower Doe". Name on docs "John B. Doe".
Would you notarize John B. Doe's signature?

Reply by Lee/AR on 9/23/10 10:02am
Msg #353575

Yes....but I'm not in CA.

Reply by PAW on 9/23/10 10:03am
Msg #353576

If the borrower's real name is "Johnny" and not "John", no I wouldn't. If the ID has the borrowers nickname, i.e. Johnny, and the documents have the borrowers real name, i.e., John, then I would. The middle name on ID and middle initial on docs, is not a problem.

Reply by SOCAL/CA on 9/23/10 10:19am
Msg #353580

Exactly PAW. The borrower's real name on ID was "Johnny Borrower Doe". The docs had nickname "John B. Doe". I am sure the SS found another CA notary to do this.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 9/23/10 10:44am
Msg #353585

I'm not seeing the issue

John would be a logical nickname for a grown man named "Johnny" - as logical as the opposite, to me. In fact, though this is just a common practice and NOT any kind of law - "John" for ID of "Johnny" would even fit the more-not-less theory.

And I don't think I've ever EVER disagreed with Paul - it doesn't even FEEL right! I'm more inclined to think I'm missing something ... what am I missing? =)

Reply by MrEd_Ca on 9/23/10 11:02am
Msg #353590

Re: I'm not seeing the issue..

... I had the same feeling ..'am I missing something' .

To the original question, I would have no trouble with John on Docs if Johnny was on the ID, however would not go for the reverse. Further, if ID had Robert I would not go with Bob. I use the less-not-more (without rearrangement of the letters) theory in notary situations.

Reply by kathy/ca on 9/23/10 11:18am
Msg #353596

I also agree with MrEd! Hmmmm n/m

Reply by SOCAL/CA on 9/23/10 11:03am
Msg #353591

Re: I'm not seeing the issue

Johnny and John are "different" names.

Reply by janCA on 9/23/10 11:39am
Msg #353600

Re: I'm not seeing the issue

I would have no problem accepting the ID with Johnny on it, and John on the docs, as Ed and the rest have stated. Now Betty and Elizabeth would be something different. Those names, to me, are totally different. This has been discussed quite often and I guess it's all in what you feel comfortable with. Did the description on the ID fit the person sitting in front of you??

Reply by kathy/ca on 9/23/10 11:17am
Msg #353595

I agree with Renee. dont quite get PAWS thinking on this 1. n/m

Reply by SOCAL/CA on 9/23/10 11:47am
Msg #353605

Re: I agree with Renee. dont quite get PAWS thinking on this 1.

What get me on this one is the lender went to great effort to cover their own behinds by putting the borrower's full name on the AKA statement, but want the notary to notarize the nickname. The AKA statement have nothing to do with the notary ID procedures. I don't get it.
Maybe someone can explain this.

Reply by PAW on 9/23/10 2:09pm
Msg #353642

Why I said what I said.

My oldest brother's name was Johnny, not John. His son's name is John, not Johnny. I know "John" is contained in "Johnny", but I've seen a few times where the ID name is often considered a nickname, but isn't the case. Another personal example was docs were drawn in the name of "Bill Borrower", however, the borrower's legal and correct name is "Billy Borrower". He is often called "Bill" but he said that wasn't his name, nor his nickname. His name is "Billy" and that's the way he wanted it.

I guess if the borrower stated that "Johnny" was his real name, but he uses "John" consistently as a nickname, and could show some supporting evidence of the use of the name, I would accept it. But I would certainly ask the question first.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/23/10 12:40pm
Msg #353614

I would....

There is no law in CA that says the name on the ID must exactly match. None. The law reads that we are to be presented with satisfactory evidence of the person's identity. Per page 8 of our handbook:

===================
"Identity is established if the notary public is presented with satisfactory evidence of the signer’s identity. (Civil Code section 1185(a)).

“Satisfactory Evidence” means the absence of any information, evidence, or other circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the individual is not the individual he or she claims to be and (A) paper identification documents or (B) the oath of a single credible witness or (C) the oaths of two credible witnesses under penalty of perjury.
===================

So, if the ID of the person in front of me says "Johnny Borrower Doe" and the paperwork says "John B. Doe" -- I have no reasonable evidence or information that they are not the same individuals. So yeah... I'd go right ahead and notarize his signature... as long as the signature he uses matches the one on his ID. I'd also write the name on his ID in my notarial certificate, since that's the ID that was presented for the individual in front me.


You're notarizing the signature of the person in front of you... not the name on the docs. I know this has been bantied about before... but CA law contradicts itself on this. 1185a states, "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."

That's great, but that only applies to acknowledgments. Nowhere can you find equivalent wording regarding jurats. Also, this is an issue because we are told we are not responsible for the content of the documents, nor are we allowed to "determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity" when signing a document. For me, those two mandates supersede the first... but also, the first includes the phrase "satisfactory evidence" again. Nowhere does it state that names need to exactly match.

If you read the part from page 8 again and combine that with the fact that we should not be "determining or certifying" representative capcity --- it's pretty clear. We shouldn't go hunting. If we are reasonably certain the person in front of us is who they claim to be, they give us proof of their ID... then where's the problem?

Mixed up names are not our fault... that's the fault of the document preparer. Notarizing Johnny signature doesn't mean much if Johnny has no real authority anyway. That's why I always write the name on the ID in the notarial certificate... so long as the signature they use on the document matches the one on their ID.

Reply by Penney/CA on 9/23/10 1:46pm
Msg #353634

Re: I would....

I agree with Marian. I would notarize the documents.

Reply by Carol Graff on 9/23/10 1:55pm
Msg #353638

Re: I would....

thank you, Marian, for clarifying that.