Posted by garland/CA on 3/16/12 11:24am
Msg #415121

surprising news from CA SOS regarding ID

Called SOS today to ask an ID question. Signer has name on docs: (example): Mary T. L. Smith. Her DL has Mary T. Smith. Passport has Mary L. Smith (one of the initials is a middle name, other is maiden name). Obviously her, but always thought we had to have one ID with full name we are notarizing, not piece together IDs.

The answer I received today: "as long as it is a valid driver's license with first and last name correct, then it is your call (didn't even need a middle name at all according to women I was speaking with). Furthermore, Passport is just a "back-up". "always best to use the DL as long as first and last names are there and it is not expired"

I never have known our CA notary laws to allow so much room for our own judgment...anyone else ever get an answer like this?
(to me, I'd like to be able to use Passport and DL together, it is obviously her - but I don't think I would accept ID without any middle name - that really could be someone else).

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 3/16/12 11:34am
Msg #415125

Seems to me that you spoke to an SOS rep, who did not attend, or did not accept. the info (about less is more or more is less, or whatever) that seems to be given out by well meaning, but mis-informed instructors.
I do very limited GNW and primaily work as a NSA, so my perspective is a bit different. Also, IL notary law on ID is very general, and effectively leaves it up to the discretion of the NP so long as signer has a valid state of fed issued ID with picture and signature.
As a NSA, I am usually dealing with someone at their home who is refinancing their home. They have been extensively vetted by the lender before I ever meet with them.
My job, as I see it , is to determine, based on a valid ID ( and the absense of evidence to the contrary) if they are the party who the lender intends to be the borrower, and if they are the party on title to the real estate in question.

Reply by Note_this_CA on 3/16/12 12:05pm
Msg #415133

I have also received similar responses from the SOS. I was told we "aren't the police".

Of course this makes California the "anything goes" state.

It appears the problem is in the wording in the handbook which states:

"Identity is established if the notary public is presented with
satisfactory evidence of the signer’s identity. (Civil Code section 1185(a)"

– “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's the "reasonable person" part that will get you.

I was told if I didn't like it I should contact my representative to get the civil code changed.

Reply by HisHughness on 3/16/12 12:56pm
Msg #415139

One more time around the block

Our job is to ID the signer. If you are presented with a DL with the signer's picture and signature on it, along with birthdate and address, you have identified the signer. Note that even the CA code -- which is more restrictive than other states -- declares: "'Satisfactory Evidence' means the absence of any information, evidence, or other circumstances..." It does not require ID that matches the name as used on any document. It doesn't require that the ID's middle initial(s) match anything. It only requires that you not have in front of you <other> information which would cast doubt on the ID as presented by the DL, passport, etc.

If the ID is sufficient for you to let your teenage daughter catch a ride to school with the person, accept it. You are there to facilitate the signer's business, not be an impediment.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 3/16/12 6:08pm
Msg #415179

"Of course this makes California the "anything goes" state."

No, NY is the "anything goes" state; they may have even trademarked the term. NY simply requires "satisfactory evidence", without ANY direction as to what that might be - basically, it comes down to notary discretion.

"It's the "reasonable person" part that will get you."

No it won't, as long as you're not going way out on a limb to accept something like a library card as ID (BTW, some of the libraries where I lived in NY issued library cards that were essentially a photo id - acceptable as ID? Maybe, in NY...). The whole point of "reasonable person" is - does this make sense? That's usually not very difficult to figure out. As Hugh has pointed out several times, our job is to facilitate the transaction, not impede it.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/16/12 6:29pm
Msg #415180

In America, anything goes with names

When the US was founded, it wasn't practical to write brand new laws on every subject, so English common law was adopted as a starting point, and the Congress and state legislatures would override common law when they saw fit.

Under common law, a person was given a Christian name at baptism, and it was sacrilegious to change it. People would sometimes have an additional name, a surname, which described them (Smith would make horseshoes for you, Fletcher would put feathers on your arrows, etc.) The surname could be changed any old time if someone moved or changed occupations.

The states have passed laws here and there which nibbled away at the edges of the common law. For example, now you can change your given name as well as your surname, and you don't can be a full-fledged citizen even if you haven't been baptized. But there has been no thorough overhaul of the name policy in any state, and what few rules exist are made ineffectual by the constant movement of people among the various states and countries. So anything goes.

Reply by HisHughness on 3/16/12 8:56pm
Msg #415199

Re: In America, anything goes with names

***So anything goes.***

That's more true than most people realize.

I think it is true in all jurisdictions -- certainly in most -- that a person is free to call himself whatever he wishes. I can, for example, actually decide to become His Royal Hughness, as long as it is not done to defraud anyone or evade the law. Now, whether that name will be accepted in commerce and legal transactions without some sort of ID is another matter. I may actually BE His Royal Hughness, and I may have called myself that and been known to all my friends and associates and ex-wives by that name for 30 years, but getting Flagstaff Bank to accept that without an ID is problematical. So, if I want my life to run smoothly, I go to court and get my name changed.

When I was practicing, I had a guy come to me for a name change. His name was Hector Lippschitz. So, I took his $500, went to court, and got his name changed. To George Lippschitz.

Women have an easier time with name changes. When they get a divorce, they are not just offered the choice of retaining their married name, or going back to their maiden name or their previous name. They actually can choose a whole new name. Go in Ima Down Trodden, come out I. Wilser Vive.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/16/12 9:29pm
Msg #415204

Re: In America, anything goes with names

A lot of people think that a suffix is part of a name, and if the grandfather of John Doe III dies, he must go to court if he wants to be known as John Doe Jr. I wonder how many courts would turn Mr. Doe away, telling him it isn't necessary or allowed to use the court name change process to change a suffix.

Reply by Susan/CA on 3/16/12 9:37pm
Msg #415206

I like Hugh's answer... n/m

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/16/12 9:39pm
Msg #415207

States where you have to go to court to change your name

According to a paper by Julia Shear Kushner at

http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/57-1-7.pdf

only Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, and Oklahoma require one to go to court to change one's name.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 3/17/12 8:33am
Msg #415229

I'm going to disagree with this information

but will only comment on states where I've lived/worked

I believe Connecticut and Florida require court intervention for one to "legally" change their name....not I said "legally" - anyone can adopt any name they want, but without court intervention it doesn't make it legal.

For FL http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=change+of+name&URL=0000-0099/0068/Sections/0068.07.html

CT goes through probate court ... http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/pub/chap801a.htm#Sec45a-99.htm

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/17/12 9:40am
Msg #415235

Re: I'm going to disagree with this information

All states provide a way to change one's name through the courts (or in Hawaii, the Lieutenant Governor), but except for a few states, that mechanism runs in parallel with the common law option of just changing one's name by using the new name; you can use whichever method you prefer. Of course, getting either government agencies or private parties to accept the common law name change can be a big struggle.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 3/17/12 4:51am
Msg #415225

I signed - twice- over a time, an old gal who legally

changed her name (late in her life) to, I'll say, 'Louise.' That's it. Her first name.

She said she had no problem in Court, but did have aa heck of a time throughout the process of her refis, and ended up prevailing because the law is the law. [I've got my journal to prove this, but of course, her Identity is protected except through Due Process for Just Cause under Oregon law.]

Hugh's point about ~intent~ [delightful humor aside] intent is the crux of our Identity, our Personhood, our NAMES = what we are known by, what we go by - what we choose.

We have a basic Legal Right to be called our choice of names - just not to do so to be an outlaw. No nefarious reason? Legal.

Just because we are "given" Names, doesn't mean we have to keep them - and that goes for men, women, our pets...

Just call me Irish.

Jmho.