Posted by Calnotary on 6/7/12 7:44pm
Msg #422879

Another name question.

I have been reading some posts on here but still not sure on this one.

I have a signing where the docs were as(not the real names) Bill Clinton and the ID was William Clinton I asked for any other document that showed Bill Clinton and he was not able to provide any. I did not finish the signing.He told me that William Clinton is his legal name but he always go by "Bill Clinton" Everybody knows Bill is short for William but I don't know this person! Let's hear your opinions please.

Reply by Lee/AR on 6/7/12 7:52pm
Msg #422881

I wouldn't have a problem with that (in most cases)

The thing is... when someone is dealing with most (not all) r.e. salespeople, said r.e. person is just as likely to put a person's nickname on an Offer. That's what the lawyer gets in order to draft the Deed and, thus, that's how 'title was taken'....which, of course, must then 'match' any Refi done much later.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 6/7/12 10:36pm
Msg #422901

Re: I wouldn't have a problem with that (in most cases)

You're right, Lee/AR, about the refi having to be in the same name as the recorded deed; but the buck stops with me, meaning docs need to be redrawn with proper vesting changes. I'd say that most of the time they have been. The lender grumbles alot, but tooooo bad. I think a long time ago a lender just fired me, and got an inhouse notary to play ball. Fine with me.

Reply by HisHughness on 6/7/12 8:36pm
Msg #422888

So what would an ID with "Bill" on it have established?

That people named "William" are sometimes -- often? most of the time? -- also called "Bill"? You already knew that. I would not have had a problem with that ID.

The equation goes:

A William is often called a Bill.

Most English speakers would recognize that any William can be -- probably is -- also a Bill.

This is a William.

He says he is also a Bill.

That should be adequate to identify him.

"Will" would be more problematical. It is both a given name and sometimes -- much more rarely than Bill -- a nickname.

Reply by LKT/CA on 6/7/12 10:19pm
Msg #422896

I have a coworker named Jimmie. Found out his legal name is Jimmie, not James. My cousin is known by the nickname Jimmy and his legal name is James. I've notarized for a Greg (legal name) who was not a Gregory. I've come across a few others whose legal name was the nickname variation.

When dealing with real property, I'm with you....I would not have finished this signing either. JMHO

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 6/7/12 10:29pm
Msg #422897

I'm with you, Cal

I support your decision 150%, Calnotary. Make that 1000%! I'm done with nicknames, credible identifying witnesses (except in circumstances allowed by CA code), lack of proper ID, etc. Every notarial certificate we sign sez we have ID'd the person through satisfactory evidence, which is delineated clearly in code, and we do so under penalty of perjury; and the fines and jail time for blowing this off are enormous. Not that I've ever heard of anyone serving jail time for this, but I don't intend to be the first. I don't care what borrowers "always go by." Yes, Bill may be a nickname for William, but so is Willy, Billy, Will, etc. So what does any of that prove? (Nothing.) And the fact that he couldn't come up with anything (!) that had Bill on it, despite the fact that he "always goes by" Bill; well, what does that tell you? That he expects to sign a $200,000 loan in a name "he always goes by" but has not one shred of "proof"? It's not my job to accommodate all possible name variations or guess who's who; not my job to be sure borrowers get their loan before the rate lock expires; not my job to be sure the LO gets his midmonth bonus; it's my job to keep my commission out of hot water.

It's the lazy lender's responsibility to prepare the docs in the real live name of the signer, not a nickname, IMO. If they can't do that, then I don't intend to take the hit.

Reply by LKT/CA on 6/7/12 11:08pm
Msg #422902

10 Star Post, GoldGirl!! n/m

Reply by Linda Juenger on 6/7/12 11:08pm
Msg #422903

Amen Goldgirl. I stopped playing the nickname game a long

time ago. I completely understand how the nickname got vested, but WHY was it allowed in the first place? I can hear the phone conversation now: Hi, what's your name. Bill. Ok, so that's what put on the title. No ID asked for or looked at. Now its time to refi and ole Bill doesn't have an ID stating Bill. Its William on his ID and all of a sudden its the notaries fault that we won't accept it. Tired of it and taking my toys and going home.

I had a lady a few weeks ago who honestly didn't know what her legal name was. Docs, ID, Marriage Cert and a signature card from her work and passport all said something different. There were 4 names intertwined in all of them. 2 had the same last name, 2 had a different middle name etc etc etc. I was willing to continue and for the 1st time in this career, I stopped, looked her in the eye and asked her point blank. Do you want this name thing continuing forever or do you want it stopped here and now? She said she wanted it stopped. She said she knew what names she wanted from here on out and was going to take the necessary steps to get it done. Signing stopped and about a week later I was called to go back and she was the happiest person to finally be WHO she wanted to be. I did not overstep my bounds but could read through the cracks that this lady had been through the mill with all her name changes being widowed, married again and divorced and back to maiden name. She thanked me a hundred times for someone questioning the names to finally do something about it.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 6/7/12 11:46pm
Msg #422905

Not to be critical of how others ID signers, but

I believe that it is our functon, when we ae acting as a Notary Public and as a signing agent, is to determine if the person before us is the party who owns the subject propety and is intended by the lender to be the party to whom they intend to extend credit. Of course , we are to act in compliance with our state's notary laws and the lender's Patiot Act requirements.
The lender should , of course, determine early in the loan process , how title is held and how the signers ID reads, but this rarely happens.
From what I have seen on NOTROT, NO state's notary statutes require that the ID exactly match the name on the dox, nor do any laws adopt the "more is ok, less is no good" "rule" propounded by XYZ and well-meaning notary instructors.
I am not saying that we should not be on the lookout for possible fraud, but if it is clear that the intended party is in front of us, and presenting an apparently valid ID indicating, in accordance with the letter of applicable law, that they are the intended recipient of the loan, and are the owner of the PIQ, then I believe, that we should be able to notrize their signature.

Reply by Buddy Young on 6/8/12 12:22am
Msg #422907

Re: Bob, I agree with you. n/m

Reply by HisHughness on 6/8/12 12:52am
Msg #422908

When these questions arise, I am always reminded...

...of the Hippocratic Oath for physicians: First, do no harm.

I think we should have something similar for notaries: First, do not be an unnecessary impediment.

I think we should keep in mind that we are there to facilitate the signer's business within the bounds of the law. If a requirement can be legitimately interpreted two ways, one of which precludes a signing and one of which results in the signing being done, then my take is always always always to use an interpretation that helps a signer get his legitimate business done.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 6/8/12 1:44am
Msg #422911

O, contraire

IMO, the harm's already done long before we get in the picture, His Hughness.

We are notaries first and signing agents a distant second. It's only incidental what document the person is signing. However, if the document being signed has an actual name on it, the ID better match. I'm not saying it has to match letter for letter, but I can't and won't say, well, the doc has Bill Clinton on it, but your ID says William, and that's good enough for me. In actuality, it may be true. It also would never occur to me that Bill might be committing loan fraud. In fact, I'd bet money that Bill is truly William. I bet Bill has a nice dog and a lovely mother, too. But I don't know any of that for sure, and it's not up to me to surmise, to guess, to think maybe so, to weigh pros and cons, to use common sense, or to play along. It's first and foremost up to me to ID the person, and I can't do that with so many variables. (Heck, we can barely do that with proper ID anymore, but that's a different story). Then again, CA ID requirements are pretty cut and dried (as opposed to what some other states allow).

I've been down this ID grey-area road too many times where all of a sudden it's on my shoulders to facilitate a loan closing and send this borrower on his merry way when everything is screwed up because of lazy lenders, sloppy loan processsors, escrow officers who operate in the dark and borrowers who can't be bothered to tend to their ID. If I'm the bad guy, so be it. It's unfair to the notary to expect them to kick the can down the road just to help everybody out. I may have a good hunch that the person is exactly who he says he is, but anybody can have a hunch. Anybody can make judgment calls. You don't need a notary if that's all you want. BTW: I would never tell any other notary how to do their job in this regard. My original post was in support of Calnotary's decision.

Reply by bagger on 6/8/12 11:04am
Msg #422945

I agree with Bob and Hugh and also ask this of Goldengirl

What would you do if the picture doesn't EXACTLY match?
Hair color change, or plastic surgery performed since the ID was issued.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/8/12 2:40am
Msg #422912

I happen to have a brother whose legal name is "William". My entire life, I've known him as "Bill" and never heard him referred to in any other way. When I got an invitation from him to connect on LinkedIn as "William", it took a moment for it to register who it was - and it seemed very strange to read his profile about "William". I'm, also pretty sure that his social security card, driver license, credit cards - and practically everything else with his name, including his business cards - have his name as William. (Well, now that I think about it, he might have a work ID as "Bill", but I'm not sure.)

If I were notarizing something for my brother, I'd not have any problem with continuing but in the situation described here, if the guy couldn't come up with ANYTHING that had "Bill", I might be taking a walk, too.

I think I'll give my brother a call this weekend... (BTW, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he has title to his home under the name "William" and not "Bill".)

Reply by VT_Syrup on 6/8/12 6:56am
Msg #422921

A person can use more than one name for legal matters

People are allowed to conduct business under more than one name. Endless court decisions can be found using your favorite search engine to support this. In many states, notaries who change their names during their commission period are allowed to continue to notarize under the old name, either until the SOS processes their name change notification, or until the commission expires, depending on the state. Personally, a patent attorney had no problem with me applying for a patent using a nickname (there was no time to redraft the application).

If people are allowed to use more than one name, it follows they are allowed to be notarized under more than one name.

Reply by CJ on 6/8/12 10:02am
Msg #422933

My 2 cents.

I signed a guy who said he works for the DA, and his job is to arrest notaries. I asked him about the ID problem because that is the problem that comes up the most for me. (Irate borrowers INSISTING I accept their incorrect ID because all the other notaries accepted it.) He told me that if the notary accepts incorrect ID, then even the borrowers are arrested because accepting the incorrect ID is a felony and the borrowers part in is conspiracy to commit a feloney.

I had a messy signing the other day: A "wife" was going to sign POA for "Pablo Carlos X" (the "X" standing for "tenth".) (Pablo Carlos not the real name.) It turned out that Pablo Carlos X was her brother-in-law and she owned the property jointly with him, but her own husband, Pablo Carlos XI had to sign an interspousal. Well, Pablo Carlos XI did not have "XI" on his license and he said the DMV refused to put it on there, and I should just accept it. Then he explained that Daddy Pablo Carlos had eleven boys, and named them ALL "Pablo Carlos" and then numbered them all. Can you imagine the fraud that could be committed with twelve (including dad's) driver's licenses all with "Pablo Carlos", similar photos, and no Roman numerals? They were showing me all kinds of things to "prove" her husband was "Pablo Carlos XI", but of course none were acceptable. I had to get two witness over (family members) to swear that THIS man was #11.

I also agree that if title is being paid all that money to make sure title is clear, and we know how much the borrowers complain about having to fax over a ton of stuff, that title should look at the DL, and look at the vesting and give the borrowers the head's up if this is going to be acceptable, or they can't sign the loan docs! DUH!!!!

Reply by VT_Syrup on 6/8/12 11:38am
Msg #422951

Re: My 2 cents.

"They were showing me all kinds of things to 'prove' her husband was 'Pablo Carlos XI', but of course none were acceptable." I've never seen a clear statement signed by an appropriate authority, like the SOS or the California Supreme Court, that says the name on the ID (from the list of IDs the law says CA notaries may use) must match the name on the document and/or the name singed and/or the name on the acknowledgement certificate. I've also never seen a clear statement signed by an appropriate authority that a suffix is even part of the name in California. On the other hand, I've also never seen a clear statement from any appropriate authority in any state that the signer may sign with a suffix, and the notary may put the suffix in the acknowledgement certificate, without proof that the suffix is correct. I have seen a statement at the Oregon DMV website that the DMV clerk may take the word of the person applying for a license about what the correct suffix is.

I don't count telephone conversations or emails received by notaries from the CA SOS and then posted on the Internet. For one, I'd never be able to convince a third party that the Internet posting is reliable, even though I personally trust the poster. Secondly, such reports contradict each other, most likely because the various question-answerers at the CA SOS are giving different answers.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/8/12 3:26pm
Msg #422979

Re: My 2 cents.

"I've never seen a clear statement signed by an appropriate authority, like the SOS or the California Supreme Court, that says the name on the ID (from the list of IDs the law says CA notaries may use) must match the name on the document and/or the name singed and/or the name on the acknowledgement certificate."

The idea that the name on the document must match the ID is essentially a fallacy. I say essentially.... because there are exceptions. I know some notaries (many that I respect) take a different opinion on this. But to me, in my certificates, I write down the name of the person appearing in front of me according to the ID. If they claim to have the authority to sign a document, that's what they claim. What if they are the AIF for somebody? That gives them the authority to sign. I am not allowed, by CA law, to go digging around and determine if this is true or not. I have to take them at their word. That's why the name of the person in front of me goes on the certificate.

People forget that a notarization doesn't make a document legal or binding. All it does it verify the identify of the individual signing. It is up to the courts to determine capacity and legality.

I don't give 2 hoots if it exactly matches a name in the document or not. In CA, we are NOT responsible for the content of the document except to be sure that the document appears to be complete.

Now that I've said that... there are some caveats to that, especially when we have to use credible witnesses as ID. The ONLY thing we have, in official writing comes from CA Civil Code 1185:

"§ 1185.Acknowledgments; requisites
(a) 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.
(b) 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 and any one of the following:
(1)(A) The(1)(A) The oath or affirmation of a credible witness personally known to the officer, whose identity is proven to the officer upon presentation of a document satisfying the requirements of paragraph (3) or (4), that the person making the acknowledgment is personally known to the witness and that each of the following are true:
(i) The person making the acknowledgment is the person named in the document.
(ii) The person making the acknowledgment is personally known to the witness.
(iii) That it is the reasonable belief of the witness that the circumstances of the person making the acknowledgment are such that it would be very difficult or impossible for that person to obtain another form of identification.
(iv) The person making the acknowledgment does not possess any of the identification documents named in paragraphs (3) and (4).
(v) The witness does not have a financial interest in the document being acknowledged and is not named in the document.

(B) A notary public who violates this section by failing to obtain the satisfactory evidence required by subparagraph (A) shall be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000). An action to impose this civil penalty may be brought by the Secretary of State in an administrative proceeding or a public prosecutor in superior court, and shall be enforced as a civil judgment. A public prosecutor shall inform the secretary of any civil penalty imposed under this subparagraph...."


Now, that's all a bit confusing and there is debate (on both sides that I agree with) that the "described within" can mean many things. The biggest argument against this is, for example, we are allowed to notarize documents in a foreign language. If the content of the document is not of my concern and I can't read it to being with, how can I possibly know who is "described within" a particular document? The only thing I can (and IMO should) go by is the signature and if it matches the ID. My certificate will show the name on the ID. If the CA SOS comes out to clarify this better, I will follow what they tell us.

If the document says, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" signs it, claiming to have the authority, I don't really care. My certificate will show that Jane Doe was the one who appeared in front of me. If her signature is fraudulent or she didn't have the authority, it isn't MY fault that she executed it without authority. That's why CA has such strict working laws. In fact, if she's lying and doesn't have authority, my journal with her signature (and possibly thumbprint) are evidence of her crime.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 6/8/12 2:26pm
Msg #422970

NOT questioning your truthfulness, CJ, but the apprears

that California has solved its crime problem. If they can assign a DA to arresting notaries who
have notarized the signature of the proper person on a ducument, but verified their identity based on an official document that utililezed a variation of the person's name, which was somewhtat at variance with the name as shown on the document. Those TV shows showing killings at licquor stores must be out of date.
If Franz Kafka were alive today, he could write a new book.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/8/12 3:42pm
Msg #422980

Re: My 2 cents.

"I signed a guy who said he works for the DA, and his job is to arrest notaries. I asked him about the ID problem because that is the problem that comes up the most for me. (Irate borrowers INSISTING I accept their incorrect ID because all the other notaries accepted it.) He told me that if the notary accepts incorrect ID, then even the borrowers are arrested because accepting the incorrect ID is a felony and the borrowers part in is conspiracy to commit a feloney."

Well, this guy doesn't entirely know what he's talking about. First off, DAs don't arrest people. They are lawyers who file complaints and actions.

Second, "accepting an incorrect ID" isn't necessarily a felony. If the notary knowingly does something in regard to a deed of trust on a single family residence, then it could be a felony depending upon what they did. That is the ONLY felony specifically listed in CA notary law.

Failure to obtain "satisfactory evidence" of the ID of the person (with an acknowledgement) is a CIVIL penalty of up to $10,000. (Civil Code 1185).

Now, they COULD be charged with a felony for PERJURY (CA treats perjury as a felony) if their certificate says something that isn't true ... our handbook tells us that "Perjury is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three or four years." Every CA notary signs their ack certs under penalty of perjury. That's where they can get you... and THAT is why I write the full name of the person on the ID on the certificate. I don't care what the document says.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/8/12 1:41pm
Msg #422962

"I asked for any other document that showed Bill Clinton and he was not able to provide any."

I hope that you meant (being in CA) any other document on the approved ID list for California. If the guy has a Costco card with Bill on it, that doesn't count (in CA).

I am often horrified when I hear of CA notaries who accept alternative names based on them showing a social security card, birth certificate, etc. in adddition to their regular ID. We can't do that.

Besides, I always put the name on the ID on the notarial certificate, because that's who I identified.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/8/12 3:57pm
Msg #422983

"I am often horrified when I hear of CA notaries who accept alternative names based on them showing a social security card, birth certificate, etc. in adddition to their regular ID. We can't do that."

I don't believe CA notary law says any such thing. Our Civil Code does, of course, identify what types of ID are acceptable, but there's nothing written about how that is to be interpreted, aside from using "reasonable reliance..." (And I think that would include interpretation of what is, as you put it, an "alternative name".)

Elsewhere, it says that "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 and any one of the following: [referring to types of acceptable ID.]" (Caps are mine, for emphasis.) It doesn't say "proven beyond any shadow of a doubt".

So, IMHO, there are times when I have no reason to believe the person before me is NOT the person named in the document and the ID presented *could be* interpreted as meeting the undefined standards in our code (as well as the defined ones, like expiration date), but I would feel more comfortable with a higher level of certainty. In those cases, I have no problem asking to see something else as back up. The ID presented is still entered into the journal as the method of obtaining “satisfactory evidence”, but I don't see any reason to not enter comments in the notes section about any supporting evidence that was viewed.

(I should probably add that I tend to interpret this to a pretty high standard, but not one that always requires the names to be exact match-ups. But we all have to decide this on our own, as we do sign every ack "under penalty of perjury".)

Let's face it, these days families are complicated - and so are people's names, especially in our pluralistic society with a multitude of cultural norms about names. And having proof of their identity in our free American society is probably not even on the list of priorities when it comes to the decisions people make about how they use their names. (Wouldn't we love it if it were?!!! )

We may hate it that there are gray areas and that things aren't always black and white, but that is the world we live and work in and that we have to deal with. And, of course, we will all choose to deal with it in our own way, as is our right. However, I think it's important to realize that these decisions are our own opinions and we should state them as such, and not proclaim them to be absolute Truth.