Posted by VioCa on 10/26/11 2:41pm
Msg #401792

Mortgage Connect

Please be aware that Mortgage Connect based out of Moon Township, PA is looking for a Notary to do a signing in Downey California where the borrower does not have proper ID for this particular transaction (middle initial missing from the ID but present on the docs and no other form of ID to prove the middle initial)
When I called for instructions the escrow agent asked me to leave the docs with the borrower so I asked why and the answer was that he needs to send another Notary to do it because he has never heard of such thing. To make it more clear in California more names on the ID is acceptable but never less. Is this only a California law or is it all over USA. I was under the impression that it is in all USA states.

Reply by desktopfull on 10/26/11 3:11pm
Msg #401798

Not true here or in CA, check with your SOS. n/m

Reply by Riley/FL on 10/26/11 3:16pm
Msg #401799

FWIW, I wouldn't do it either.

I had one a while ago where ID expired 2 days before the signing. Borrower was aware it had expired and just didn't bother to get it renewed even when I told him CURRENT ID is needed.
I will not break the law and then send a copy of the evidence (DL) to the TC as well.

Reply by NJW/FL on 10/26/11 4:33pm
Msg #401811

Re: expired driver's license Riley/FL

FS 117.05[5][b][2] states that the document must be 1.) current or if expired, issued with the past five years, and 2.) bear a serial or other identifying number. I have never had the expired document issue myself. Had this come up in conversation with another notary once before.

Reply by Riley/FL on 10/26/11 5:34pm
Msg #401819

Re: expired driver's license Riley/FL

Most, if not all, Fl driver's licenses are issued for 6 years minimum now (as was his). I've seen some that expire up to 8 years from the issue date.

Reply by Riley/FL on 10/26/11 5:43pm
Msg #401823

also...

Someone at the FL HSMV decided that women have to use their maiden as their middle name now. I believe I read somewhere that there is no statute allowing them to do that. They just seem to make up their own rules. That just adds to the PITA factor when trying to ID someone.

Reply by janCA on 10/26/11 3:28pm
Msg #401800

Not a California law, but it's taught in many notary classes. It's nowhere in the handbook.

Did this person meet all criteria to ID him? Description, signature, picture? Go back to the handbook and read Page 8. If you are satisfied that this person is the same person named in the docs, then he can sign however he wants. BUT your certificate can only reflect who you have identified from his ID. If docs say James A. Jones and you can only ID him as James Jones, that's what you put in your certificate.

Reply by VioCa on 10/26/11 3:56pm
Msg #401804

I have called Secretary of State many times before on this issue and was told that more on the ID is acceptable, less it is not. What about this, had one the other day where two brothers were to sign loan docs, one brother signed with me and the other one in Northern California, the only difference in their names was the middle name. First name and last name the same, the middle name different. What about if my signer was misssing the middle name from the ID, how could I have possible made sure that I am notarizing the brother that I am supposed to.

Reply by Scott/NJ on 10/26/11 4:03pm
Msg #401805

So...did you refuse to complete the signing? Did you take your printed docs back with you or will you get paid for them at least?

I have never had any situation where the ID didn't match or was expired. Once was a Police Officer and his expired the next day...I told him so, but he already knew.

In your situation what fee do/will you get? Full? Half? Or would the TC/SS not pay you at all?

Reply by janCA on 10/26/11 4:09pm
Msg #401806

Then they need to put that in their Notary Public Handbook.

Only you the notary can decide if the ID presented is the person who is sitting in front of you. By California law, there is certain criteria that has to be met in order to perform a proper notarization. Again, page 8 of the handbook and if you feel that the signer has not met the criteria described, then don't notarize. It is your call.

Reply by Riley/FL on 10/26/11 4:22pm
Msg #401807

I find it hard to believe he could not produce some sort of evidence of his middle name. I would not be comfortable with it.

Reply by VioCa on 10/26/11 6:24pm
Msg #401834

Yes, she provided a credit card but as far as I know a credit card is not on the list of acceptable forms of identification

Reply by Notarysigner on 10/26/11 4:29pm
Msg #401809

Considering what they pay, I wouldn't even be posting about them, I'd be too embarrassed! IMO

Reply by VioCa on 10/26/11 5:59pm
Msg #401825

I would never accept what they normally pay. They've met my fee

Reply by VioCa on 10/26/11 6:16pm
Msg #401830

Also this was a first one for them and the last one. I do not do any business with the ones with shabby business practices.

Reply by Notarysigner on 10/26/11 6:37pm
Msg #401837

It is what ever you said, what do I know?

Reply by jba/fl on 10/26/11 5:13pm
Msg #401817

I sure would not leave the docs unless I was paid for them. The audacity of the EA.

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/26/11 6:01pm
Msg #401827

My $0.04

On page 8 of the handbook, "satisfactory evidence" is not left up to interpretation but actually spells out it's meaning which says <and I will capitalize for emphasis>: "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, as specified below:"

It says the ABSENCE of information......not the ADDITION of information - meaning we don't add other documents to become "satisfied" that Joe Schmoe is Joe Allen Schmoe. The CA handbook clearly says the ABSENCE of information - and the ABSENCE of that information being within the allowable government issued IDs. So in other words, if from the allowable government issued IDs, there is information ABSENT / MISSING, (i.e. middle names or initial), then the signer has not shown they are the same person on the paperwork.

The handbook does NOT say the notary is to become satisfied picking and choosing whatever they feel like to ADD to the government ID to become satisfied. "Satisfactory evidence" is spelled out in the CA handbook. And while the "more on the ID than the paperwork" is not a law, it is an accepted practice in CA and IMHO is certainly is an excellent guideline to adopt.

The day will eventually come when a Notary accepts the ID of Joe Schmoe for paperwork that says Joe Allen Schmoe, when in fact that signer is really the brother/cousin/uncle/grandfather - Joe Edward Schmoe. It's not up to the Notary to prove the signer ISN'T who they say they are. The signer is coming before the Notary - it's up to THEM to prove they are who they say they are, via the government issued ID. The Notary is not discrediting the signer - the signer discredits themselves by not having ID that contains the same or more information than their paperwork. It's the signer's fault, not the Notary.

If a signer takes a Notary to court over this - GOOD!! Maybe this will set the wheels in motion for the SOS to change an accepted practice and make it the law. JMHO

Reply by VioCa on 10/26/11 6:13pm
Msg #401828

Re: My $0.04

Thank you LKT/CA
This is exactly my point of view but I have not descriebed it so well as you did.

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/26/11 6:15pm
Msg #401829

Re: My $0.04 - to clarify

Should read: The day will eventually come when a Notary accepts the ID of Joe Schmoe for paperwork that says Joe Allen Schmoe, when in fact that signer is really the brother/cousin/uncle/grandfather - Joe Edward Schmoe - and Joe Allen Schmoe sues the bajeebies out of the Notary for their lack of due diligence in guarding against fraud/identity theft.

Reply by Riley/FL on 10/26/11 6:17pm
Msg #401831

Completely agree. n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/26/11 6:20pm
Msg #401832

That's pretty close to the point I was making

in the thread about "Sr", "Jr" and lack of the suffix -

James Allen Jones is not necessarily one and the same as James Allen Jones Jr. - and when papa sues bank for letting sonny boy sign papers, they're gonna ask the notary "why??"

Going again to proper, CONSISTENT ID...

Reply by Carolyn Nee on 10/26/11 8:47pm
Msg #401850

Re: That's pretty close to the point I was making-Ditto- n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 2:36am
Msg #401878

Re: That's pretty close to the point I was making

*and when papa sues bank for letting sonny boy sign papers, they're gonna ask the notary "why??"*

I would shut up (be quieter maybe?) if someone would show me where this has actually happened... the notary looked at *valid* ID, there was an initial rather than a full name, (or it was missing jr...one of those types of situations), put it in the journal, and performed the notarization and got in trouble for it.

There are a lot of bad notary situations out there. Let me count 'em for y'all....

Robo-signing notaries who did what they did for a paycheck and let others use their stamps, didn't see the signer sign, etc.

Notaries in cahoots with house flippers and con artists.

Notaries who practice UPL and immigration law.

Dullard notary who "married" a couple without the wife there, duh.

Dullard notary II who notarized son's signature with HIS ID where his mother should have signed, duh II.

Notary who helped an old man prepare forms/will dispute-charged with UPL.

Notary who notarized wife's signature when husband brought a form in to change his
retirement benefits...wife is suing notary because she says she never signed that form...notary has to deal with it because she did not require personal appearance.

Notary who notarized documents for that evil mom and son duo in California. Sante something? She was dressed in a gown and in bed and using another woman's ID. 1st notary refused because of the picture...not her! The second one was a dullard and did it without looking at the picture.

I've looked high and low....the situation that you describe is certainly possible somewhere out there, but apparently not probable, or not making the news a-n-y-w-h-e-r-e. I can locate nothing to indicate this has happened, or that a notary was sued or punished for it happening.

It would be winning the trifecta for me if I had that kind of subject matter to write about...but, in all my hours of seeking info on topics like this, no data.

PS - In Texas, courts have ruled that Sr. is 100% surplusage and is not a part of the name and may be disregarded in order to identify an individual.

Jr. is almost 100% surplusage when identifying a person...except if the person is receiving civil process...then, the Jr. needs to be on the summons. Go figure.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/28/11 1:03am
Msg #402030

Re: My $0.04

"and the ABSENCE of that information being within the allowable government issued IDs. So in other words, if from the allowable government issued IDs, there is information ABSENT / MISSING, (i.e. middle names or initial), then the signer has not shown they are the same person on the paperwork."

I disagree with this interpretation about the reference to "absence". It's not saying "if information is absent", IMO it's saying absent any evidence to the contrary that would create doubt - and with a qualifying ID - we have "satisfactory evidence". I don't believe there is anything that addresses how we are to interpret what we see on the ID.

To put it another way, that unless there exists evidence that contradicts the person's primary ID or something the notary is aware of that would cause them to believe fraud is being attempted, or some other evidence that might raise doubts, that, given one of the acceptable forms of ID, we're good to go.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/26/11 11:52pm
Msg #401863

Re: Mortgage Connect / Escrow Agent is right.

(Also, See Msg #401169)

More / Less is an urban legend...total bunk...not a law; it is a rule that a trainer or notary organization made up to make the ID task sound cut and dried. It is not. It requires the notary to look at ID, decide if it is valid. Next, the notary must consider satisfactory evidence. That is on Page 8 of your handbook.

Do you have evidence that the signer is lying? If not, and if you have valid ID, the signer is entitled to notary services.

From Page 8 of your handbook:
Satisfactory Evidence – “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, as specified....

In America, a tragedy of proliferating propaganda has changed notary behavior from being public servants to the citizens to being suspicious of citizens, refusing notary services when no good cause exists, and they seem to expect the sky to fall and the dam of fraud to burst open if they don't demand that a client get their ID in order so that it matches property titles.

Property titles do not match ID. They do NOT have to. Notaries who have been personally involved in multiple real property transactions are very aware of this.

Notaries no longer provide the identification task, they provide the task of trying to detect fraud. That scares me. Has the XYZ really pounded notaries heads hard enough about being the gatekeepers against "fraud" so that they cannot think reasonably about this?

I've not seen or heard about any criminal activity along these lines that was not accomplished with a complicit notary working with the criminal...or, a notary being too stupid to care if the right person was signing the document. (Son signs for mom's fortune and notary did not check to see if the man was signing a document clearly meant for a woman.)

My uncle called me today about my aunt's/his sister's plans for her estate. He, of course, thinks of me by my first and middle names that are on my birth certificate. He and his sister thought that it would be nice to put on critical documents of value to me my name stated as "Brenda MiddleName MaidenName Stone"; my DL and passport do not include my middle name.

My mind went immediately to NR and how unjustifiably suspicious and intolerant notaries are of citizens whose driver licenses or passports do not match and suit their ideas of identifying signers. I asked him to please not do that...there will be notary work. I will be very angry if I am ever told that I am not giving enough ID. I know that I am. I know that 95% of the people that I read about here being turned down should not have been turned down if they provided the notary valid ID.

I anticipate that notaries who have not yet learned what satisfactory evidence is will be the subjects of court cases in the near future. I anticipate this for two reasons. (1) The refused signers would have a case and suing can be lucrative. (2) Now that things are slow on the real estate side, legal minds will need new avenues of income.

The following is from my research of Texas laws...I strongly suspect that if notaries searched their own states for similar rulings, they would be found in most cases.

Being refused notary services by a Texas notary over a "missing" middle initial is indefensible. It may be so in other states, as well. If the notary is not given any indication that the signer is lying or trying to forge a document, then the notary should be very careful about refusing notarization over a missing initial or middle name.

(1) Texas, like the common law, has never recognized the necessity or relevance of a middle name.

(2) A total variance in a person's middle name is IMMATERIAL except at the point it identifies another person. [Each of those come from higher court rulings and I will not bore you with the cites or the reference material that I am basing these statements on, unless you just want them.]

Furthermore, middle initials are treated like middle names; they are IRREVALENT. [More higher court rulings.]

Differences in name spellings? Idem Sonans (Misspellings) - Spelling accuracy is not required in legal documents as long as the name sounds correct phonetically. Court rulings show that "Ida" has been accepted for "Iida," "Baxley" has been accepted as "Barkley." The GOAL is to establish identity. It is NOT to match a DL.

Foreign names that sound like they are spelled in the document, but which may not perfectly match ID are treated the same. If the misspelled name "sounds" like the accurate spelling when sounded out, then no harm is done by misspelling the name. The conveyance instrument is able to transfer title.

And, while we are on it, here is the difference between fraud and forgery and how it affects property conveyance (in Texas, anyhow). Are you a gatekeeper against fraud? Or, are you accusing signers of being forgers?

Fraud is when someone hands Grandma a deed and tells her it is a nice statement about her church and that she should sign it. She does so without reading it and she is out on the streets in a matter of months. Fraud does not void a deed, but it can be voided with court action and testimony. Fraud can also stem from putting a signer under duress. Notaries are focused on initials and are ignoring that gate...not asking Grandma if she knows what she is signing, etc.

Forgery occurs
-When someone named John Smith executes a deed that is meant to be signed by another man named John Smith. For instance, when a deed that should be executed by a father is executed by a son with the same name. That is forgery. The deed is void because the signature was forged. It is messy, but there is no harm done because the property's title stays just like it was before the forgery.
The innocent buyer of the property has no claim. The property never leaves the owner whose signature was forged.

-When a document has blanks in it and someone fills in incorrect information after it is notarized.

A forged document is void ab initio, or "null and void from the beginning."

Forgery is what notaries are accusing signers of when they do not have perfectly matching ID..."You do not have a middle initial on this driver license so you must be planning to forge this document...you are not the real owner; you are a criminal.

How did so many notaries get side-tracked with *matching* IDs? If there is not evidence available to a notary to say that a signer is lying and not signing for the purposes stated in the document, or that a person is about to forge a document in place of the right person then the notary should be prepared to defend turning away citizens after they have presented valid ID.

Reply by VioCa on 10/27/11 12:48am
Msg #401870

Re: Mortgage Connect / Escrow Agent is right.

OMG, now I understand why many Loan Agents, Escrow Agents and even Lenders do not know that their borrowers need matching IDs to sign loan documents.
I will walk in to signings from now on and not even bother to ask for ID so this way I will avoid a law suit for refusing to notarize for somebody that I cannot properly identify.
I do not go by info that I get from different agencies or organizations, here is the California SOS number (916) 653-6814 to call by anybody that wants to get clarifications on this matter.
After that please send me a PM or even post on the open forum if I was wrong.
I, as a Notary Public am following the SOS's rules and do not question them.
This is not negotiable

Reply by HisHughness on 10/27/11 1:30am
Msg #401873

Re: Mortgage Connect / Escrow Agent is right.

***This is not negotiable***

What isn't negotiable, apparently, is your willingness to follow wise counsel.

Your job is to identify a signer. You do that by "satisfactory evidence" in every jurisdiction that I know of. In some jurisdictions, statutes or regulations may stipulate what constitutes "satisfactory evidence."

That task is separate from correlating the identity of the signer with the name printed on the docs. How that is done is normally not embodied in law. Many companies employ a rule of thumb -- that's a term you should remember -- that you can oversign but not undersign. Others use further strategems. Those approaches are not embodied in law.

I think you would be better off if you did not seek to turn them into law, because two things will inevitably happen. The first is that you will be unsuccessful. The second is that you will be frustrated. There is also a third thing that may happen: You may get Brenda pissed off at you. If <that> happens, the first two will fade into insignificance.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 1:54am
Msg #401876

VioCa - I'm collecting posts exactly like this to share

various notary administrators in SOS offices with whom I share membership in an organization and email list.

If I am wrong, I will retract. But, please understand that I have done a great deal of research on this topic. I'm not making grandiose statements without foundation and would never have said things publicly based on theories that I created in my own pea brain.

I have made a huge investment of time into studying notary laws from just about all 50 states for several years and using that knowledge to make a living. I do not take this lightly. If I am wrong, I could lose a lot.

I have asked for quotes, statutes, or cites to show me where I am wrong. To date, there have been none. Most who disagree have a belief that I am wrong, but little more.


One problem is a lack of understanding that the name that title to property is held in, and names on state issued IDs or passports have nothing to do with one another. They exist in different worlds and for different reasons.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 1:21am
Msg #401872

Satisfactory Evidence: Accurate description

I have seen the definition of "satisfactory evidence" butchered in this thread, albeit with well-meaning.

It would be entertaining if it were not so important to the rights of citizens who seek notary services. The more I see the word "suspicious" on this board about citizens who simply need notary services and notaries who require ID matches and imaginary less/more criteria that is not even lawful, the more concerned I become for notaries as a profession.

I hate to call PAW down on this situation, but I can guarantee you that I never read that Paul A. Williams supported the notary ID match game, or the mythical more/less rule.

I lay this misconception at the feet of the XYZ and the "trainers" who road the gravy train.

It cannot be left like that on this board for the future. Both sides of this issue must be presented so that critically thinking notaries can weigh the evidence and authorities presented. Future readers should not be only exposed to unsubstantiated mythical rules to help them be "personally satisfied" about a person's ID, so that they will continue to propagate incorrect, distorted ideas about their duties as notaries.

If you disagree with me when I say that IDs are not required to "match" with middle initials and so on and so forth, as discussed in this thread, please cite a nationally recognized notary law expert who holds a J.D. or PhD and has specialized in the study of notary law; please post their credentials.

Cite:

Peter Van Alstyne, Attorney at Law
Article: The Notary's Duty of Care for Identifying Document Signers
The John Marshall Law Review/Lexis-Nexis
2009

"Satisfactory evidence is a user-friendly legal term because it is simple and rather self-explanatory.

Satisfactory evidence is sometimes called "sufficient evidence," that "amount of proof which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind."

In relying on satisfactory evidence, -->the correct question for the notary is not whether it is possible that the document signer is an impostor, but whether there is sufficient probability the signer is who he claims to be. This important standard is not unlike the legal axiom that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Although the document signer bears the burden of proof as to his true identity, there should never be a presumption of attempted false identity on the signer's part unless the notary reveals such falsity through the presentation of satisfactory evidence.<--

CREDENTIALS: Peter J. Van Alstyne, founder and President of the Notary Law Institute in Salt Lake City, Utah; Former Director of the Utah Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. J.D., University of Utah College of Law, 1982; M.A., Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Pittsburgh, 1976; B.A., University of Utah, 1974. The Author has served on the legislative staff of U.S. Senator Jake Garn and U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. T.H. Bell in Washington, D.C. Mr. Van Alstyne has published numerous national articles on issues of notary law. Mr. Van Alstyne is the recipient of the 1990 Exemplary State and Local Government Award from Rutgers University.

==========
Last week, after my first post that was strongly in opposition to treating citizens with the suspicion that was described, I received an email. The email had a letter attached from the legal department of a secretary of state’s office. The notary who sent it to me had pinned down the legal department of her state. Guess what! The secretary of state’s legal department said that Mary Smith named in the documents and Mary Jones on the driver license may be determined to be the same person if there is no evidence to contradict the

The letter was three pages long. The most important point of the letter included a distinction between a notary’s “personal satisfaction” and “satisfactory evidence.” The letter said, “If the license, ID card, or record does not by itself conclusively establish a person’s identity, it nevertheless can be used as the principal component needed to obtain satisfactory evidence—not “personal satisfaction”—that the person is the person whose signature is about to be notarized.”

Summarized, notaries may require valid ID to establish “satisfactory evidence,” but they may not require “personal satisfaction.”

It finally struck me that notaries do not understand the difference.

“Satisfactory evidence” is a legal term with legal criteria.

“Personal satisfaction” is subjective; it is based on the notary’s “feelings” and “suspicions” but not on facts or evidence.

That is the difference. Citizens should not be held hostage by the need of a notary public to be personally satisfied of their identity. Notaries must learn to understand the real meaning of “satisfactory evidence” and must separate it from their feelings or suspicions.

Reply by John/CT on 10/27/11 6:34am
Msg #401883

Brenda, would you please ...

complete the following sentence: "The secretary of state’s legal department said that Mary Smith named in the documents and Mary Jones on the driver license may be determined to be the same person if there is no evidence to contradict the ...." Otherwise, thanx for your great posts. They certainly have made me re-think my own position in this matter ... after more than 14 years!

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 7:01am
Msg #401886

Re: Brenda, would you please ... Gladly; sorry about that.

"The secretary of state’s legal department said that Mary Smith named in the documents and Mary Jones on the driver license may be determined to be the same person if there is no evidence to contradict the...signer Mary Jones's claim of identity and if the notary does not have reason to suspect that the documentation presented is invalid.

The letter goes on to discuss that the DL or passport, etc. is the "basis" for identifying the woman standing before the notary and that the photo ID is key in identifying the person who has presented ID and is standing before the notary . In this particular instance, the key word for discussion is "basis." In this instance, additional information may be considered by the notary to conclude that the signer is who Mary says that she is, but the BASIS for identification must be the govt issued ID. It is not the ONLY document that may be viewed.

I meant to take this out because it is quite a discussion.

The legal expert who wrote the letter was so careful to point out that each word in the law is used for a specific purpose.

My examples would be:

"BASIS for identifying a signer"
Not the ONLY information that may be taken into account, but the BASIS.

"REASONABLE reliance on ID documents"
Not CONCLUSIVE reliance.

"a REASONABLE person believe..."
Not a hypersensitive person inundated with suspicions and fraud warnings (and who are worried by this about losing a commission) rather than the identity of a signer."

"Satisfactory Evidence" not "Personal Satisfaction"

And, so forth.

Reply by Carolyn Nee on 10/27/11 7:56am
Msg #401890

Re: Brenda, would you please ... Gladly; sorry about that.

Brenda - first thank you for all your research on this. In light of all your research and how you have so throughly explained, I too, am rethinking my position.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 9:05am
Msg #401899

I was very upset when I learned that

I had been given completely bad information from the NP administrator's office and then it was reversed by 180...it made me realize that even our offices are fallible.

My concern is for the public and their rights to notary services...certain pockets of citizens occur over and over on this board.

Women who have married once or more, or divorced are often caught in this loop and cannot sign off on transactions that relate to properties under a different name.

Men with the suffixes "Jr." or "Sr." are others who are being put through a lot of unnecessary trouble. Finally, I feel that people of foreign descent are dismissed because of this for many different reasons...spelling being one of them.

If a citizen cannot get notary services, it puts him or her at a disadvantage.

Reply by desktopfull on 10/27/11 9:31am
Msg #401903

Re: I was very upset when I learned that

Most of the time the suffixes will be on the birth certificate. I don't understand why they have the suffixes put on their docs when they never use it or have any id as proof. People need to understand that by using so many aliases that they get themselves into this problem and then get mad when their wishes aren't fullfilled.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/28/11 12:42am
Msg #402028

Re: I was very upset when I learned that

"People need to understand..."

No, they don't, actually. People don't make life decisions for our convenience and the potential prospect of having to have a document notarized some day is the farthest thing from most people's minds - and probably a very low priority to most of the public. However, after reading this thread, it seems clear to me that WE need to understand that the decision for most people about how their name is written and how they write their signature can be influenced by a wide variety of factors. It's a probably more than a bit self-centered of us to believe that those decisions should happen in order to comply with some conventions [like notary requirements] that rarely impact their lives.

Reply by desktopfull on 10/27/11 9:16am
Msg #401901

Re: Satisfactory Evidence: Accurate description

If they don't have a government issued id with correct name, without credible witnesses verifing Mary Smith is Mary Jones I'm not notarizing anything for her. Sorry, these days anyone will say anything to get what they want.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/28/11 1:34am
Msg #402035

AGREE, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT STUFF! And adding my thanks!

I also greatly appreciate all the work you've done on this subject - and your willingness to share it with us. I've been reading bits and pieces of this thread over the last couple of days (OK, it just feels like it's been that long ) in between printing docs and rushing back out to appointments. And I've been thinking about this - and other similar topics that have recently come up for discussion.

One thing I realized a while back is that we as humans have a tendency to accept as gospel whatever we learned as brand spanking new notaries [or insert here anything else you like] and to accept that the person who we learned it from had an absolute line to "The Truth". The teacher said, so it must be so...

The fact is that they learned what they think they know from someone who taught them, etc. There's no guarantee that that info was correct and there are precious few absolutes in this - or probably any other - business.

So I've been working hard at challenging my assumptions about what is "right" for some time now and it's been a continually enlightening experience. I can't think of a better way to either correct a previously wrong assumption or to confirm the accuracy of one, than to research the topic in depth, as Brenda has done here for us, or to request a written judgment from a state authority, as Renee is often recommending.

As I'm often warning readers of this forum to be careful who you "listen" to, let me just say that these are two ladies whose comments I pay close attention to! So many, many thanks to both of you for your invaluable contributions! I think I'm among those who are seeing this issue a slight bit differently as a result - and I'm very grateful.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 2:10am
Msg #401877

I said, "IRREVALENT"... Nice one, Brenda

Let's try, "irrelevant."

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 10/27/11 5:49am
Msg #401880

Fully support Brenda's presentation & stance

I agree and thank you for taking the time/effort to include the information in these ID debates, for posterity & hopefully to motivate others to insist upon legal directives from their State's government.

It's a weekly job, and it does get tedious. I do not understand why so many attempt so rigorously to 'prove' their points without WANTING to pull out a legal directive from their SOS to wave in the face of everyone's debate-points? For years I've watched this - and it's beyond just a conversational debate - and it just baffles me.

I've said & shared the info I received from the MI SOS's legal office many times over - and this is the letter I e-mailed to you, that you now reference. It didn't cost me a dime to get, although it did take some persistence - which I have in abundance, when something is important enough.

Considering how large the UPL Monster looms among our community, it seems so contradictory to read so many self-imposed 'laws' based solely on what amounts to hearsay and personal preference.

I am fascinated by law - and I find it both interesting and significant that the statutes governing "identifying" someone for the purposes of notarization use the words that they use. "Person" is used, "Name" I have never seen used as a reference to the IDENTITY of the Person. It will say '...that the PERSON standing before you is the PERSON named ...' It will NOT say '...that the NAME on the ID of the person standing before you is the same NAME as stated in the document ...'

We are not the Name Police, we are not the signature police, we are to determine, based upon satisfactory evidence and (for CA) "reasonable reliance" that the PERSON standing in front of us is the same PERSON signing, named in the document, who they say they are. Were we to rely "solely" on the NAME as shown on ID ...we wouldn't need to see a photograph & physical description on the ID.

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 7:14am
Msg #401887

Re: Fully support Brenda's presentation & stance

Thanks, Renee'...It is hard to get past past the $12/hr clerks who are giving answers that someone's old supervisor said was probably right but, I think that I have a little bit of a foundation to get moving in that direction...ah, time...why is there so little of ye?

The good part is that if notaries do call and get answer or email, they have that to base any errors on that come as a result of the answers.

For YEARS I would not copy certify a DL because I was told by the former advice giver at the state (who was fired!) that it could not be done...don't do it!

Guess what....that opinion has been reversed. The paralegal gave me patently wrong information and I, therefore, and others in teaching situations did likewise. But, at least I could cite her.

Reply by janCA on 10/27/11 9:22am
Msg #401902

Re: Fully support Brenda's presentation & stance

Thank you, Brenda. This has been one of the best discussions on this board in a very long time.

Reply by JAM/CA on 10/27/11 12:38pm
Msg #401950

Bravo!!! Brenda n/m