Posted by BrendaTx on 10/27/11 10:25pm
Msg #402011

*Reasonable* Answer from the CA SoS

After today's lively debate on IDs, I received a PM from a California notary. The notary shared this from the CA SOS.

It proves that the More/Less rule is a myth.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contacting our office with regard to identification.

Civil Code section 1185 (3) which states "Reasonable reliance of the
presentation to the officer of any one of the following, if the document is current or has been issued within five years:
(A) An identification card or driver's license issued by the
Department of Motor Vehicles.
(B) A passport issued by the Department of State of the United
States......"

For example, it is normally reasonable to believe that if "Sam" is on the document, and is short for Samuel, which is on the identification, however if the id shows just Sam, the document could show S., Samuel, Samantha, etc.

Again, you need to have reasonable reliance that the person appearing before you is the same person who signed the document. Other elements on the identification such as photo, description, signature can also be used to determine reasonable reliance.

Sincerely,
Notary Public Section"



Translation by Brenda Who Diagrams Everything


ID states:-----------Document states:--------Is it reasonable
------------------------------------------------------to believe that this
------------------------------------------------------is the person?

Samuel -------------Sam--------------------------YES

Sam -----------------S., Samuel,
-----------------------Samantha, etc.------------YES

Reply by MistarellaFL on 10/27/11 10:45pm
Msg #402012

I am so in agreement with you

I've never understood how this subject is so misunderstood.
Thank you for your diligence!

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 10/28/11 12:05am
Msg #402023

Welcome to California ... n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 10/28/11 1:17am
Msg #402033

Always found the more/less rule to be ridiculous

I don't know how that ever got started, but it sure has been perpetuated over the years. I don't know what every state requirement is, but I'd be surprised if any state notary statute says the names have to match exactly or less is acceptable but not more. I've been arguing it forever; if you're reasonable sure based on ALL the information on the ID including photo, age, signature, and physical description, then you're good to go. I'll go even farther than the Sam/Samuel example. I have no problem accepting a woman's ID when the woman recently got married, her ID shows her maiden name, but all of the other info matches including her picture, physical description, and signature AND she can show me corroborating evidence (such as the marriage license). It's more than reasonable to me.

Reply by jba/fl on 10/28/11 7:51am
Msg #402042

Re: Always found the more/less rule to be ridiculous

I agree - there comes a point you just have to take that leap of faith and trust your own instincts, especially with evidence piling up such as Al stated.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/28/11 2:00am
Msg #402036

THANK YOU, Brenda!!!

This supports what I've been doing in practice for some time, but I'll feel a little different about it from now on!!

My just-added comments in msg # 402035 are probably relevant to this post, as well...

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 10/28/11 5:33am
Msg #402037

EPIC - and kudo's to the CA notary who obtained this! n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/28/11 6:46am
Msg #402040

Kudos is right! If she wants to say who she is

we wouldn't mind. But, I know that she may not.

I loved this part.

"For example, it is normally reasonable to believe that if "Sam" is on the document..."

"Reasonable" is my word for the day.

Reply by Carolyn Nee on 10/28/11 8:52am
Msg #402048

Re: Kudos is right! If she wants to say who she is

And it's a great word! Thank you Brenda and Ms. Anonymous Notary.

Reply by Notarysigner on 10/28/11 9:25am
Msg #402058

Brenda,..that sounds Reasonable! n/m

Reply by Belinda/CA on 10/28/11 10:20am
Msg #402070

This all makes sense to a point.

I called the SOS once because I wanted to be clear concerning what was reasonably acceptable.
Sam is acceptable for Samuel because Sam actually appears in Samuel. Ben actually appears in Benjamin, Pam for Pamela, and so forth. The shorter name must appear in the longer name.

However, the sticky part entered when they said Rick/Rich is not okay for Richard because Rick or Rich does not actually appear in the longer name. Lizzy won't work for Elizabeth for this same reason, and so on.

This is what I was told by a lady and her supervisor at the SOS office.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/28/11 2:30pm
Msg #402089

But this is not consistent with the written response in the original post. If you go back and look at it, they're saying that "Sam" on the ID could reasonably be assumed to be "Samuel", "Samantha", etc.

Getting back to the "reasonable" test, we all pretty much know that, for example, many whose given name is James will be known by Jim or Jimmy, etc., William will go by Bill or Billy, and yes, Richard will use Rick. It's just a matter of common sense. When faced with that kind of situation, the first thing I do is ask if they have anything else that shows their name that way. Often I'll be shown a work ID with a picture that has Richard's name as Rick. There are lots of other things they could show (e.g. a social security card, a birth certificate, even a business card that matches the 1003) that could give me a higher level of comfort. I don't consider those "other forms of ID" (unless needed and appropriate for a Patriot Act form), they're just something that supports my decision to accept their primary ID as satisfactory evidence.

Reply by MrEd_Ca on 10/28/11 4:43pm
Msg #402111

I don't see it ...

... call it what you will, I just don't see the Notary section employee saying that 'Sam' on the ID can be 'Samuel (or Samantha, or Samson, or ..? ). The note says 'however' , not 'it is ok to add more to the signers name to make Sam into Samuel or Sammy, or Samson if it seems reasonable'. What about a JR, or II, or III (I have an III coming up. He has it on his DL , says he). Can we just accept that if there is a case that can be made for 'reasonable reliance' ? It's enough to make my head spin.
Granted, while some of these leaps of logic are basic & seemingly simple, some are not. As a Ca. notary, I would sure feel better, & it would be a lot simpler, if the Notary Public Section put this in its handbook. Personally, I think the 'less not more' rule of thumb is reasonable, especially after reading Msg # 133888. (& that Notary Section employee gave her name !)