Posted by Patti Corcoran on 12/21/11 10:33pm Msg #407315
ID question - I'm sweating bullets here
Tonight I had to make a judgement call. The SS had already closed shop. The name on the docs was Sally E. Smith. Her ID, and legal name, is Sally E. Jones-Smith. Since the ID and docs do not match I chose to abort the signing. My thinking: The name on all of the documents is not her legal name. Now I'm worried.
Reply by HisHughness on 12/21/11 10:36pm Msg #407316
Your role is to ID the signer, not match ID to documents. Do you have ANY doubts that Sally E. Smith is Sally E. Jones-Smith? Was there other documentation available -- utility bills, university degree, health club membership, SS card -- that could have helped you resolve whether she was who she said she was?
Reply by Art_PA on 12/22/11 10:19am Msg #407335
Right. If the person before you is the owner, complete the signing. My $.02, Don't overthink these ID issues. You can confirm ID using the license & other documents, marriage license, etc. If you have doubts as to the identity, you don't proceed even if the ID matches the docs.
Reply by MW/VA on 12/22/11 2:36pm Msg #407355
Agree with Hugh & Art. Cases if hyphenated names, etc. are
pretty common these days. Loan docs are how they took title to the property. I'm not careless about ID issues, but use some common sense in situations like this. IMO, the issue of fraud only comes into play if a different person is signing & pretending to be the principal.
Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 12/22/11 12:27am Msg #407319
I'm kinda thinking that since the name on the docs is not her real name that the lender would not want her to sign docs until corrected. I don't think this is necessarily a matter of matching the name on the docs with that on her ID; it's a matter of getting the correct name on the signature line.
All sorts of people up the line may be all in a twist tomorrow that the loan didn't sign, blah blah blah, but I would simply say: "The name of the docs is not her name. Her name is such and such."
Sally E. Smith may indeed be Sally E. Jones-Smth and probably is. But assuming the lender wants her to sign exactly as her name is printed, then she would be signing a name that is not hers.
Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/22/11 4:34am Msg #407328
"...then she would be signing a name that is not hers."
I see it a little differently. If the lender was asking her to sign "Sally E. Jones-Davis", then they would be asking her to sign a name that wasn't hers. But they're just asking her to sign a portion of the name that's on her ID vs all of it. Some of us run into that sort of situation on almost a daily basis. I don't see it that differently from not signing one's full middle name, for example.
I've run into lots of situations where a woman (especially a professional or business woman) may vary what name she uses, depending on the circumstances. At work, she may be known by her maiden name and in social situations with her husband, she might use his name and sometimes might use both. Those might be considered AKAs and they might be different, but they're all still hers, imo, if she has a legally hyphenated name.
To the original poster, I don't think I would have had a problem with that ID. However, I wouldn't stress too much over it. What's done is done and this experience will just help you (hopefully) next time you run into it. Everyone has their own idea about how to define what is someone's name and what is considered positive identification. But you also have to use whatever guidance is provided (if any) by your state's notary laws. From what I've read here, though, I don't think most states give much info on how to interpret what's on someone's ID. They usually just refer to "satisfactory" evidence. Requiring a name on a document to match exactly what is on someone's ID is, imo, a very high standard that I don't think is practical in the real world. Just my 2 cents.
Reply by BrendaTx on 12/22/11 6:38am Msg #407330
Missing PAW...but,
Hugh and Janet have two very practical answers. Whether raising kids or working as a notary public, there is no substitute for experience; not even a PhD, or a JD.
sue/pa doesn't post any more; Paul's not here to be a voice of reason. Fortunately, Hugh and Janet are here.
I would love to say, Paula Cole says it best, "Where have all the cowboys gone?" but I don't think she means it exactly like "Where have all the 'good guys' or,--the law abiding, smart, but-tempered-with-practicality notaries' gone?"
If only John Wayne had been a notary....it is a great time to work in a good Thursday song.
Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/22/11 9:50am Msg #407332
Agree with Hugh and Brenda on this one
The idea that the ID has to have "more names" than the document is a myth - one that has only become popular because of NNA propaganda.
Reply by Carolyn Breckenridge on 12/22/11 9:58am Msg #407333
As long as I had satisfactory ID. I would have closed it and then added this name to the name affidavit. If it wasn't already there.
Okay, am I wrong?
Reply by Shelly_FL on 12/22/11 10:29am Msg #407339
In this case the "judgement call" would not be mine.
I do not believe it is my place to second guess the lender's decision on what version of her name to use on the documents. Although, I can understand your curiosity of why the Jones was omitted and a courtesy call to inquire is a thoughtful gesture. The bottom line is that all components of the signature name are contained on the ID. If the signer is claiming to be this version of her name, who am I to question it.
In Florida, I am permitted to document it as such by using "Sally E. Jones-Smith, who represented to me she is also known as Sally E Smith." Additional supporting ID is always a wise option.
Reply by Glenn Strickler on 12/22/11 12:17pm Msg #407346
This question illustrates how important it is
to be completely familiar with the ID requirements of your state. As we have seen throughout the years, the id language of most of the states, including California is fairly vague leaving it to the judgement of the person performing the identification. That person must use their intuition and common sense when trying to positively identify the customer. And that is how it should be. Black and White doesn't always work very well.
Those of us in certain states where identity theft runs rampant, have seen cases where the ID has matched the documents perfectly, but the ID didn't match the customer. In that case we have to go further in trying to positively identifying the person such as asking for other supporting documents. I have run into more than one identity theft driven loan where the ID matched perfectly, but the customer wasn't the person in the documents. Right now, I know at least a couple of notaries who have a body part in the wringer because they did not question a mis-match between the ID and the customer. Call it profiling or whatever you want, but they have some legal issues none the less, and the ID matched the documents perfectly.
So enter the term "Preponderance Of The Evidence". When faced with a situation such as yours, I simply ask for other supporting documents such as Hugh mentioned. Some people keep a hyphenated name for business purposes, ie Sally Jones has an insurance brokerage, gets married, but keeps the Jones in her name for business purposes. Others just forget to change their ID. So in your case if the "Preponderance Of The Evidence" proved to me that she was who she claimed to be, I would have proceeded.
Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/22/11 2:49pm Msg #407357
Re: This question illustrates how important it is
Good points. I think the most likely scenario is when a couple acquires property before they get married. Title is in her maiden name, but later she changes her name to her husband's and doesn't change the vesting on the property. I only wish most people were smart enough to keep the maiden name (or whatever other previous name under which they held title to property) on their ID.
BTW, I agree with the others who suggested asking for further documentation for your comfort level if you have any doubts. I should add, though, that at least in my state, "further documentation" isn't a substitute for inadequate ID, if for example, the documents had a last name that wasn't on the ID at all.
Reply by MelissaCT on 12/22/11 11:14pm Msg #407396
The ID can have more than, but not less than the name on the docs.
Reply by HisHughness on 12/22/11 11:25pm Msg #407397
***The ID can have more than, but not less than the name on the docs.***
Okay, everybody: Take a deep breath. Exhale. Count to 10. Go pour yourself a glass of eggnog. Add generous dollop of nog. Polish it off. Now come back to the computer and work your email.
Remember, it's Christmas, and the spirit of peace on Earth, good will to men -- and NSAs named Melissa -- should prevail.
Okay...don't you feel better for handling it that way?
Reply by MelissaCT on 12/23/11 3:27am Msg #407413
LOL! Thanks Hugh...needed a laugh on a rough day.
Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/23/11 10:23am Msg #407440
MelissaCT wrote "The ID can have more than, but not less than the name on the docs."
Sorry about losing the FT job. While you were gone, Vermont started issuing the enhanced drivers license, which is a higher standard of ID and will allow those Vermonters who are also US citizens to cross the Canadian and Mexican borders by land or water (with a regular DL we would need a passport). These IDs only have first name and last name. No middle name, no suffix. I'm not about to decide all those Vermonters who have a middle name or suffix on their deed no longer own their homes and can't sell or refinance then because they got a new driver's license. I would, of course, require some evidence that the person being referred to in the instrument, with a middle name, is the person appearing before me, but that evidence would not necessarily be in the form of an ID card or passport.
I have relatives in CT and there is a potential for me to get documents notarized there. I note the relevant law, stated in the CT notary manual, says:
(9) "Satisfactory evidence of identity" means identification of an individual based on (A) at least two current documents, one issued by a federal or state government and containing the individual's signature and either a photograph or physical description, and the other by an institution, business entity or state government or the federal government and containing at least the individual's signature or (B) the oath or affirmation of a credible person who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual.
"Based on" is a different rule than "ID can have more than, but not less than".
