Posted by Calnotary on 12/18/12 5:11pm
Msg #446984

CA Notaries not doing a good job.

If you notarize docs with the wife's maiden name in the ID and married name in the docs. Do you think you can do that and no body else is going to know?

Remember you are not the first notary in that file, maybe there is a 3rd or 4th notary who has rejected that signing because of lack of ID. And those 3 or 4 notaries will know that your did commit a felony by simple checking in the local county recorders office and your name will show on the "notarized" doc.

Remember you can not use CW because she has current ID, are you going to bend the rules just because the LO or Title is telling is ok to do it?

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/18/12 7:24pm
Msg #446999

What if the person was married and bought a house. Now, she is now married to someone else. The property is in the first married name. Surely you would not expect a woman to go get ID in the old married name for one business transaction. How would you handle that?

Being a woman who has had more than one last name and purchased/sold property in a different married name, I sincerely feel for women in this predicament.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/18/12 9:07pm
Msg #447009

Here's the problem with that... no where, anywhere, are we told that the name on the ID must match a name on a document.

The only thing remotely close that we have is in regard to acknowledgments (and only acknowledgments) in Civil Code 1185 where we are told, "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. For the purposes of this section “satisfactory evidence” means the absence of information, evidence, or other circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person making the acknowledgment is not the individual he or she claims to be..."

Again, it doesn't say we have to play the match game... or the more than less than game... we have to rely on common sense and the definition of "Satisfactory evidence", which, as stated in the handbook is an ABSENCE of information that would lead us to think that the person is not who they claim to be. If the document has a name of Jane Doe and the ID has a name of Jane Jones... yes, there's a possible issue when it comes to an acknowledgment. However, if they absolutely claim to be the same person, and the "description" (whatever that might be) seems to matches... then you should be okay unless you have absolute proof that they are NOT who they claim to be.

That's where the "penalty of perjury" bit comes in. When you notarize one's signature, you are asking them, is this you did you sign this? If they say yes and you have no evidence to the contrary, how are you perjuring yourself?

Now... after that, you've got a pickle. Me? I always put the name on the ID on the notarial certificate. If you're using the married name on the certificate, but relied on the maiden name for ID... then you might be putting yourself in trouble.

Now, am I saying that *I* would absolutely have accepted this? No way... every situation is different. It's likely I wouldn't, but I certainly would talk to them first and exhaust all possibilities.


Now, why won't credible witnesses work? Now, every situation is different, but just because she has ID in her maiden name and lacks ID in her married name doesn't mean it isn't "difficult or impossible" to obtain ID in her married name. It may very well be difficult or impossible. In order to get an ID in her married name, she has to usually show a copy of her marriage certificate or other legal name change paperwork. What if there is a legitimate legal reason she can't do that?

I realize that in some cases it's just laziness... but in other cases, it's not.

I know of a woman who lost all of that paperwork on her honeymoon (they got married overseas) thanks to the airline losing her luggage and she had to wait for another copy of her marriage license to be sent from overseas before she could pursue getting a new ID in her married name. It wasn't HER fault, but the process to get a copy from the country, and then to have it go through the apostille process required so it would be recognized would take several months. In the mean time, she was stuck with her old ID, but she had already legally taken her husband's last name and some documents were drawn up to purchase their new home prior to them leaving for the wedding...since they were buying the home as a married couple.

Are you going to tell me that credible witnesses aren't okay in this case? As long as I have two people who are willing to swear, under oath, as to her new name, I'm okay with it.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/18/12 9:18pm
Msg #447013

BTW... when it comes to using CW's a lot of people think that having any ID means that they automatically don't qualify. In CA, that's not *necessarily* true. It may be mostly true... but not always.

The requirement is that the "signer does not possess any of the identification documents authorized by law to establish the signer’s identity."

In other words, if they don't have an ID that works, then it isn't 'authorized by law' and therefore technically qualifies for the use of CWs. But then the CW must still swear that they "reasonably believe that the circumstances of the signer are such that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain another form of identification."

The problem is that "difficult and impossible" are relative beliefs to the person giving swearing to the facts and who know this person... and NOT the notary or their prejudices/observations. I think we often tend to forget that. What may seem easy and possible to us may not be to somebody else.

Reply by Calnotary on 12/18/12 9:41pm
Msg #447022

This lady had only CA DL under her maiden name. Docs were drawn with married name. They got married 22 years ago. She does not like her married name. Title told me that in the package there is a AKA affidavit about her other name. How am I supposed to identify Jane P Doe aka Jane Obama if she does not have anything with Jane OBAMA? I am not been difficult just need to follow the law.

So I am supposed to break the law just because she doesn't care to change her name?

All docs show Jane Obama. Sorry I can not do it. CW are not supposed be used here. Some notary will do it, but not me.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/18/12 10:02pm
Msg #447026

I agree with you, Calnotary. I personally do not subscribe to the practice that only the name on the ID matters and who cares what the name on the docs say, mainly because I believe the "spirit" of the law is that the person executing the document is the person *named* in the doc, which in the previous Handbook, it actually states that.

I definitely agree with you and I would not notarize paperwork where the name in the doc says Jane Obama and her ID says Jane P. Doe - and that's even if she *liked* her married name. JMHO

Reply by ananotary on 12/19/12 12:09am
Msg #447038

Agree calnotary n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/19/12 2:31am
Msg #447045

Well, yeah.... like I said, I'd likely not do it, either... and with more details.... hahah. 22 years? She just doesn't like her married name? Yeah.... in this case, it's one of those things where she either needs to get her ID fixed or the documents redrawn, but, neither of those options are really our call.

Mmmmmm.... nope. And yeah, it ticks me off when TCs tell me, "Oh just rely on the AKA affidavit" --- uh.... no. But, what do they know?

When I noted what I did above, it was more of a cautionary thing because I know too many notaries think it's a gospel truth that names on a document must exactly match a name on an ID, and that's simply not true. Plus, there are plenty of good reasons to utilize credible witnesses.... though this situation sure doesn't sound like one. Especially if there is the "absence" factor.... meaning, no indication that the person is one and the same. And no, that AKA affidavit doesn't count.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 12/19/12 3:56pm
Msg #447105

Although not knowing all the facts

I know many women who have not taken their husband's surname upon marriage.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 12/19/12 4:00pm
Msg #447107

Oops...too fast

Hence, if she did not change her ID, her name stays the same.
Someone should notify title that married lady's name did not change upon marriage.
It's a lot more common than you think.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/19/12 6:57pm
Msg #447134

Re: Oops...too fast

I agree... I mean, this whole thing could be easily fixed by redoing the documents in her maiden name. I mean, if she doesn't like, nor use her married name then why would she allow mortgage documents to be drawn up with that name on them? That's what gets me more than anything.

It's true that many married women today aren't legally changing their names after marriage. Other confuse the issue by using both names for different purposes - keeping their maiden name for professional reasons, but in personal circles using her married name. One woman I know said she wasn't doing it because she she wanted to carry on her family name. Another said...and I kid you not, that since half of marriages end in divorce anyway, she's rather save herself the aggravation of having to change it all back later.

Reply by Budman on 12/19/12 12:02am
Msg #447036

Re: Marian, that was excellent n/m

Reply by CJ on 12/19/12 12:39am
Msg #447041

Question to complicate matters:

Did she really change her name to her married name? If not, then NO ONE can technically swear that the married name is really her.

But I don't like that the title companies set us up like this. They should look at a copy of her license first and THEN decide what to do.

If the borrowers and the notary all agree to just use the incorrect ID, they are ALL committing a felony and they can ALL get in trouble. (That's my understanding, because it is a conspiracy to commit a crime.)

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 12/19/12 10:40am
Msg #447053

Re: Question to complicate matters:

"If the borrowers and the notary all agree to just use the incorrect ID, they are ALL committing a felony and they can ALL get in trouble. (That's my understanding, because it is a conspiracy to commit a crime.) "
CJ- what crime (felony) are they committing? and where do you find this stated, that you can quote it so readily?
I agree,with Marian, "for the purposes of identification-“satisfactory evidence” means the absence of information, evidence, or other circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the person making the acknowledgment is not the individual he or she claims to be..."
This is taken right from CA notary handbook, so there is no reason, not to accept it, unless you are not in CA.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/19/12 11:33am
Msg #447065

Re: Question to complicate matters:

Sheila, the Felony comes in the complete of the acknowledgement, where the Notary (In CA) signs it under the penalty of perjury. Perjury is a felony. What it means is that you're saying some is true that isn't.

If, however, You have every reason to believe (per the satisfactory evidence rule) that it's true... then you're hardly perjuring yourself. You just have to be able to show tha tyou followed the satisfactory evidence rule.

And, as I meant to point out... that doesn't mean the name on the document and the ID have to match. It means you have to you common sense, and every situation is different. I got a few PMs from people who still seem to think that I'm saying we should notarize any old signature. Not so.

Here's an example. And it doesn't have to be real estate related. Let's say you have a signer who claims to hold power of attorney. The name described in the document clearly won't be the signer. And in CA we are NOT allowed to determine if a person has the authority to sign for somebody else. We have to take them at their word that they have the authority. That's why, when we fill out our notarial certificates, we (IMO) should use the name on the person's ID used to certify identity. Why? Because that's the only person you have in front of you that you can accurately ID. IF they claim the capacity to sign for somebody... then they claim it. Our acknowledgment certificates cover this by stating it. The only reason we would be perjuring ourselves would be if you know, for sure, that they were not who they claimed to be or that the situation weren't legitimate.

For all the whining we do about the required CA wording... it's actually there for a reason and written to protect us. BUt that's also why it's signed under penalty of perjury.

Reply by PegiT_MN on 12/19/12 1:13pm
Msg #447078

I Have A Question Regarding Mrs. Doe

It has been established that Jane Doe married Mr. Obama 22 years ago and because she didn't like his last name, she kept her maiden name.

In this particular case, it appears to me that legally there is no such person as Mrs. Jane Obama because she never took her husband's name. I would think that the lender and title company would be required to redraw all docs showing her as Jane Doe and record it properly from a legal standpoint. There is no such person as Jane Obama.

Here is my question though. Let's just say that Jessica Doe married Mr. Newlywed 22 days ago and she absolutely loves his name because she can be a newlywed forever. She is ditching the Doe name and going with the Newlywed name, however, her identification still shows her maiden name on it because they just got home from their honeymoon and she hasn't had time to go get the new picture identification. She has her marriage certificate from 22 days ago though. Would it be legal to use that as her identification?

Thank you.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/19/12 1:32pm
Msg #447081

Re: I Have A Question Regarding Mrs. Doe

*** Would it be legal to use that as her identification?***

Not in Texas, which requires a government-issued document with the signer's signture and picture on it.

However, there is a distinction between identification and confirmation, though I have never seen it set forth in the law. Use her driver's license to identify her, then use the marriage certificate to confirm that you have IDed the correct person.

That was never a problem with me. All of my marriage certificates showed the same name.

There was one problem with the name, though. Married a woman, let's call her Betty Carroll Hammerhead, who became Betty C. Nations. Then Married a woman named, say, Betty Crunchbone, who also became -- you guessed it -- Betty C. Nations. The wheels at IRS ground to an agonizing halt as they tried to digest how Betty C. Nations, wife of Hugh, wound up with two Social Security numbers.

I solved the problem just by divorcing the last Betty C. Not sure how IRS resolved it.