Posted by Shoshana/AZ on 6/9/12 8:49am
Msg #423049
A major ID issue
I went to a signing last night. The ID reads Jane Arlene Doe. The name on the docs were Jane A Doe. The warranty deed read Arlene J Doe. This was an attempt by the TC to correct the previous DOTs where her name was written as Arlene J Doe. We can't use a credible witness because people know her as Arlene Doe. The husband told the TC yesterday afternoon that she has no ID in the name Arlene J Doe. I also called the TC when I got the docs to ask if she had ID in that name. EO said he would tell them to be sure they had proper ID. At 8 PM last night of course nobody was in at the TC. Does anybody have any way out of this mess, that I haven't yet considered?
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/9/12 9:35am
Msg #423050
Re: A major ID issue...IMO
You're okay with the main body of docs...
Jane Arlene Doe could feasibly be Jane A. Doe
Jane A. Doe is not necessarily equal to Jane Arlene Doe (A could Abigail, Anderson, Avery...you get it)
Have her sign Jane A. Doe...you notarize Jane A. Doe
The warranty deed is the problem and I'm not sure there's anything YOU can do to get around it. They have to draw proper docs to correct a previous scrivener's error...Why in the world did she sign any previous DOT's with the wrong name??
I'd get the main body of docs signed and returned and let title worry about it during the 3-day rtc - but at least you preserve the docs and the interest rate, etc etc.
Good Luck..What a mess!!
| Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 6/9/12 10:11am
Msg #423052
Re: A major ID issue...IMO
I have no idea why the original notary didn't question this 10 years ago when the original loan was signed. I finally got hold of someone from title and they said to wait until Monday. If I had not heard, I'd have gone back today and had all the docs signed except for the WD. My guess is that they'll find a notary willing to break the law. Title may not realize that someday down the road, they could be hauled into court for whatever reason.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/9/12 10:25am
Msg #423053
Is it possible she was known as Arlene J back then?
maybe that's how she took title and the current docs were drawn using the name on her ID - which we know is wrong but...you never know...
Just a thought. Sounds like someone at title dropped the ball here..
| Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 6/9/12 10:41am
Msg #423055
Re: Is it possible she was known as Arlene J back then?
She said she was never known as Arlene J legally and never signed her name that way except for those docs. That's an idea. If she can't sign the WD as Arlene J, can they redraw the docs and say Jane A Doe WTTA Arlene J Doe?
| Reply by Lily/Ca on 6/9/12 10:50am
Msg #423059
Re: Is it possible she was known as Arlene J back then?
I've had the same type of problem. I used a Signature Affidavit that states, This ia my true and correct legal signature and name. Then it states, This is to certify that legal signature is as written below. this signature must exactly match signatures on the note and deed of trust. It's then notarized in jurat form and a place for a right thumb print. I had a major signing company give this to me to use to correct such a problem. I've used it 2 times and the recorders office took it. Hope this helps.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/9/12 11:37am
Msg #423062
Unless this form is provided by the title company
associated with the individual closing, it's not up to the notary to provide this and is major UPL to do so.
It also is not an acceptable form of ID.
JMNSHO
| Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 6/9/12 12:56pm
Msg #423064
Exactly right, Linda. n/m
| Reply by Linda Juenger on 6/9/12 1:12pm
Msg #423065
Lily, I sure hope you are not providing that form and using
it when you feel the need. Major UPL
| Reply by LKT/CA on 6/9/12 2:20pm
Msg #423069
Re: Is it possible she was known as Arlene J back then?
<<<I used a Signature Affidavit that states,....I had a major signing company give this to me to use to correct such a problem....I've used it 2 times and the recorders office took it.>>>
That's for the TC's/lender's use...our state handbook is the only rule that dictates acceptable ID and it's very clear and does not say we can supplement the rule with forms provided by other entities.
| Reply by Luckydog on 6/9/12 7:37pm
Msg #423086
Re: A major ID issue...IMO
I would have her sign a signature name affidavit, aka name affidavit.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/10/12 7:53am
Msg #423096
This is not your call to make, does not
correct the problem, and does not take the place of adequate, proper, acceptable ID.
| Reply by jba/fl on 6/10/12 9:48am
Msg #423097
Re: This is not your call to make, does not
correct the problem, and does not take the place of adequate, proper, acceptable ID."
That is very black and white. h'mmmm......
| Reply by kathy/ca on 6/9/12 9:35am
Msg #423051
"The ID reads Jane Arlene Doe. The name on the docs were...
Jane A. Doe". Whats the problem, especially if you adhere to the theory, the name on the ID shows as much if not more than the name on the docs. The Warranty Deed, should match the name on the other docs....maybe the TC should change that to reflect the name on the ID as well as the name on the "other" docs.
| Reply by LKT/CA on 6/9/12 2:13pm
Msg #423068
Re: "The ID reads Jane Arlene Doe. The name on the docs were...
<<<Jane A. Doe". Whats the problem, especially if you adhere to the theory, the name on the ID shows as much if not more than the name on the docs. >>>
Jane Arlene Doe (on ID) and Jane A. Doe (on paper) could be the same person.
Jane Arlene Doe (on ID) and Arlene J. Doe (on paper) are different people...at least to me.
When there are variations of a name, but in the SAME order, it's feasible the person on the ID and the paperwork are one in the same:
Jane Arlene Doe (on ID)
Jane A. Doe
J. Doe
J. Arlene Doe
J.A. Doe
However, when the name order is switched, then you could be speaking of different people:
Jane Arlene Doe (on ID)
Arlene Doe
A. Doe
A.J. Doe
A. Jane Doe
| Reply by BrendaTx on 6/9/12 9:23pm
Msg #423092
Re: "The ID reads Jane Arlene Doe. The name on the docs were...
"if you adhere to the theory, the name on the ID shows as much if not more than the name on the docs. "
Thanks for calling it a theory, because that really is all that it is.
"The Warranty Deed, should match the name on the other docs....maybe the TC should change that to reflect the name on the ID as well as the name on the "other" docs."
The Warranty Deed must match the last name that was in the chain of title.
It is important for those of us who review documents with signers to remember that lenders and title companies do things a certain way because that is the way that they must be done. It has nothing to do with the identification documentation that a notary would like to have or the name of documents that are subsequent to the transaction at hand (the conveyance of the deed that is giving everyone heartburn).
I feel that Shoshana did the right thing. There may be an error in the documents, or additional conveyance documents may be required.
| Reply by pan/nd on 6/9/12 10:44am
Msg #423057
Try this on for size.....
docs say Jane F. Hoffman-Jones
drivers license says Jane E. Hoffmann Jones....so different middle initial...an extra N
on "Hofman" and no hyphenated last name.
I call title and say I can't notarize and get the riot act read to me....finally she says...
"well, we'll get a notary who will notarize "and hung up on me.
Meanwhile borrower says not to worry...she won't sign her name wrong.
Title gal said there are plenty of aka's on the same affidavit to cover the situation.. I said
there are 10 and none of them work.
I get back home and decide to recall title to see if I can get a more helpful person.
Got one.
She said she took a look at the deed when the borrowers took title and wondered
how it could ever have been recorded because "it was so marked up."
She said the situation was so bad that the lender would need to issue new docs along with
some corrective ones and she said Mrs. Jones should never sign the docs the way they are.
So..same title company ...one rude and dim bulb and another cheerful and helpful.
| Reply by Les_CO on 6/9/12 10:50am
Msg #423060
It’s nice to hear that you are a competent Notary Signing Agent, and that you are trying your best for the borrower and Title. But in my opinion this just is not your call, Title needs to redraw the docs, their mistake, their problem, they can and should fix it. You should get paid in full for this appointment, and paid in full to go back (it they call you) for the redo. And in these cases I never worry about losing a client, I don’t want to work for someone that asks me to do something illegal, or is too stupid to realize that it’s their mistake, and they should thank you for bringing it to their attention.
| Reply by HisHughness on 6/9/12 1:24pm
Msg #423066
***But in my opinion this just is not your call***
But it was HER call -- to the title company. She called until she got a person who understood what was required to overcome her refusal to notarize. Seems to me she served the best interests of the borrower, title company, lender -- and her profession. The second call went beyond what was minimally required of her, which is what real professionals do. Now, a third call might have been pushing it, but it seems to me she handled it just as she should have. What is your reservation?
| Reply by LKT/CA on 6/9/12 2:02pm
Msg #423067
<<<Seems to me she served the best interests of the borrower, title company, lender -- and her profession.>>>
Interesting order...I see you placed "her profession" LAST on the list of who's best interest is served....and you placed it as an afterthought...disconnected from the other three "interests".
<<<She called until she got a person who understood what was required to overcome her refusal to notarize.>>>
The only thing/person that can understand what is required to overcome a notary's refusal to notarize is the state's notary handbook or a human at that state's governmental notary division. Non-notary outsiders have no say (for or against) in how to overcome a notary's refusal to notarize.
| Reply by HisHughness on 6/9/12 2:23pm
Msg #423070
***Non-notary outsiders have no say (for or against) in how to overcome a notary's refusal to notarize.***
I've seen many strange comments in this forum over the past few years, but this ranks right up there at the top.
A notary calls a title company and says the name on the ID does not match the name on the title, so she can't notarize in the title name, and the "non-notary outsider" title company escrow officer cannot say, "Hmmm...yes indeedy that does seem to be a problem. Let me see if I can't get that fixed."
You're not really known as a problem solver, are you?
For future reference, Lisa, you also may want to keep this in mind when posting:
The most important placements in conveying information are primacy and recency; in your terms, first and last. In your world, that may best be illustrated by movie credits, when a big name actor has a small role and thus does not deserve star billing, but does deserve <prominence>. In such circumstances, the last credit often will be "and with John Q. Hunk."
Secondly, when material is offset by a dash at the terminus of a sentence or by dashes in the interior of a sentence, it tends to emphasize what is said, rather than de-emphasize it. As an illustration, take this sentence: "Lisa can simultaneously be arrogant, pettifogging, puffed up -- and wrong." See how much emphasis is placed on that final element?
You have a good day now, you hear?
| Reply by LKT/CA on 6/9/12 2:45pm
Msg #423071
<<<A notary calls a title company and says the name on the ID does not match the name on the title, so she can't notarize in the title name, and the "non-notary outsider" title company escrow officer cannot say, "Hmmm...yes indeedy that does seem to be a problem. Let me see if I can't get that fixed.">>>
Thanks for the clarification. It's up to the writer to be clear in their message and if it's misinterpreted, then it's not the reader's fault, but the writer.
<<<You're not really known as a problem solver, are you?....For future reference, Lisa, you also may want to keep this in mind when posting: The most important placements in conveying information are primacy and recency; in your terms, first and last. In your world, that may best be illustrated by movie credits, when a big name actor has a small role and thus does not deserve star billing, but does deserve <prominence>. In such circumstances, the last credit often will be "and with John Q. Hunk."....Secondly, when material is offset by a dash at the terminus of a sentence or by dashes in the interior of a sentence, it tends to emphasize what is said, rather than de-emphasize it. As an illustration, take this sentence: "Lisa can simultaneously be arrogant, pettifogging, puffed up -- and wrong." See how much emphasis is placed on that final element? You have a good day now, you hear?>>>
The above is just hot air, blather, drivel, and nonsequitur to the topic. One of these days, you will simply respond to the information and forgo wasted keystrokes that say nothing about nothing and all you're doing is demonstrating how truly childish and ridiculous you really are.
<<<"Lisa can simultaneously be arrogant, pettifogging, puffed up -- and wrong.">>>
I'm not offended by a different opinion. You evidently cannot. I can post and address the message without childishly characterizing the messenger. It's apparent you cannot. People judge others through the veil of their own character. To put it plainly Hugh - YOU are what you accuse me of being (pettifogger, arrogant and puffed up and wrong).
| Reply by HisHughness on 6/9/12 3:05pm
Msg #423073
*** YOU are what you accuse me of being (pettifogger, arrogant and puffed up and wrong).***
Ah, yes, but Lisa -- I have one redeeming feature you lack. I KNOW I'm arrogant, pettifogging, and puffed up. And sometimes, though not in this case, I also can acknowledge when I'm wrong.
Have an even better day now, you hear?
| Reply by LKT/CA on 6/9/12 4:45pm
Msg #423077
<<<Ah, yes, but Lisa -- I have one redeeming feature you lack. I KNOW I'm arrogant, pettifogging, and puffed up.>>>
Hugh, there's lots of great advice and wisdom in your posts on the various topics we discuss here, ***when you address the topic***. Too bad those posts are sullied by personal attacks.
| Reply by HisHughness on 6/9/12 5:10pm
Msg #423079
Lisa, I know exactly where you're coming from
***Too bad those posts are sullied by personal attacks.***
You're talking about posts, for example, that indicate a person devalues our profession. Or posts that indicate he doesn't know what he's talking about and so inappropriately turns to others. Or posts that ... but we both know what you're talking about, don't we?
Let me make a suggestion, Lisa, since you seem to have a problem with mosts of my posts, and then with my responses to your responses ad infinitum. Why don't we spare the forum the spectacle of this sparring, and you just skip over my posts? That would mean that whatever it is you have stuck in your craw won't continue to pain, and I won't have to shove it further down your throat when you take off after me. I can live with that modus operandi.
You have an entirely fabulous day now, you hear?
| Reply by LKT/CA on 6/9/12 5:51pm
Msg #423082
Re: Lisa, I know exactly where you're coming from
<<<That would mean that whatever it is you have stuck in your craw won't continue to pain, and I won't have to shove it further down your throat when you take off after me.>>>
ROTFL!! Oh puhleeze!!! I guess you think you're flattering yourself. You haven't shoved anything anywhere...though you shovel ** it** everywhere!!
<<<...since you seem to have a problem with mosts of my posts, ...Why don't we spare the forum the spectacle of this sparring, and you just skip over my posts?>>>
You can count on my continuing to respond to your posts. The spectacle and sparring will stop when you start acting your age and not your shoe size, then maybe, just maybe you can be the 2nd party to meaningful dialogue. Yep, my day is absolutely fabulous....sunny, breezy and temp is somewhere in the 70's here in CA.
| Reply by CJ on 6/9/12 8:06pm
Msg #423089
Back to the original question.
I have been seeing Grant Deeds lately that say:
Jane A. Doe, who [orginally?] took title as Arlene J. Doe,
Grants to:
Jane A. Doe.
____________________
Jane A. Doe.
YES! I can notarize that!!!!
| Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 6/9/12 9:13pm
Msg #423091
Great idea! n/m
| Reply by Les_CO on 6/9/12 8:53pm
Msg #423090
I apologize for my poor choice of words…Rather than “call” I should have said it was not her decision on how to best correct the documents. It IS her decision on what she deems to be adequate, and proper ID according to her States requirements. Hugh is correct she did call to let someone there was a problem. I say if the paperwork did not match the ID its Titles job to make corrections. Also she asked about opinions on a “way out of this mess” my opinion was/is to Title fix the problem. That said; I agree with CJ’s post, however if the deed was from Arlene J. Doe to Jane A. Doe by Arlene J. Doe without the FKA wording I would not notarize. JMO
|
|
