Posted by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 12:33pm
Msg #416069

venting re FKA's in WA

There is 1 title company that asks me to notarize that a person was formerly known by another name. That authority is not given the notary under the Revised Code of WA. Still, they tell me all the other WA notaries commit this form of notary misconduct. It is hard to believe they are finding people to do it, but I guess they must be able to get them. So frustrating because that makes the well educated person look uncooperative. Just venting frustration!

Reply by Les_CO on 3/26/12 1:13pm
Msg #416080

So in WA if in a document, a person swears under oath that they were formerly known by a different name you can’t notarize their signature on that document?

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 1:50pm
Msg #416090

If their driver license says they are Jane Marie Doe, that is what must go in my notary certificate because that is the person that has appeared before me. My authority is to identify the person using CURRENT govt issued ID. If she was formerly known as Jane Marie Steppenwolf, I have no authority to certify that she is the person that was known by that former name. Our current law doesn't vest that authority in us.

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 1:52pm
Msg #416091

In other words, her oath does not constitute a satisfactory form of identification under the present law. Neither does any expired former identification she may possess.

Reply by Les_CO on 3/26/12 2:19pm
Msg #416094

I guess it’s a good thing I’m a CO notary and not commissioned in WA. I thought in my question I stated that she/the person in question/the person under oath actually swears to the fact that she/they were at one time known by another name…NOT you the notary. You are simply giving the oath and witnessing the signature? And you say by law you can't do this in WA?

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 2:35pm
Msg #416097

I am being asked to certify in the acknowledgement that "Jane Marie Doe, formerly known as Jane Marie Steppenwolf" is the person who appeared before me. Not allowed in WA.

Reply by NJDiva on 3/26/12 2:47pm
Msg #416099

that's a good point...

what do others do in that case. I think I've crossed the FKA out.

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 2:51pm
Msg #416101

Re: that's a good point...

Unfortunately they don't permit me to cross out the AKA in the acknowledgment, saying the loan won't close. They use a Florida law firm to draw the docs because the escrow folks are in Florida. Notaries must be allowed to do it down there but that firm obviously isn't up to snuff on WA law.

Reply by NJDiva on 3/26/12 3:20pm
Msg #416105

hmph, I'm not swearing what a person's FKA is...

that's not something for me to attest to is it?

Reply by jba/fl on 3/26/12 6:13pm
Msg #416135

Re: that's a good point...

"Notaries must be allowed to do it down there"

No, no we are not. We may have a tourist slogan "The rules are different here" but that is not one.

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 7:07pm
Msg #416141

Re: that's a good point...

Thanks for joining in - good to know!

Reply by Teresa/FL on 3/26/12 8:53pm
Msg #416146

we can write "current name" who represented to me

she was formerly known as "old name" in our certificates.

Reply by Les_CO on 3/26/12 2:47pm
Msg #416100

So what you are saying is that this title company sends you a document that (roughly) states that:
I Ronnie_WA a commissioned notary public in the State of WA do hereby swear under oath that Jane Marie Doe was formerly known as Jane Marie Steppenwolf.
I wouldn’t sign that either.
Or does it sat that: I Jane Marie Doe, under oath do hereby swear that I was formerly known as Jane Marie Steppenwolf
BY________________ Jane Marie Doe
That I would notarize. (with proper ID)
Sounds like the TC should revise their form.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 3/26/12 3:26pm
Msg #416107

Disagree ...

Your WA statutes say:

"WAC 308-30-155
No agency filings affecting this section since 2003
Satisfactory evidence of identity.
Satisfactory evidence of an individual identity shall be based on one of the following:

(1) Current documents issued by a federal or state government with the individual's photograph, signature, and physical description.

(2) The oath or affirmation of a credible person who personally knows the individual."

Laws are written with the intention that each and every word be taken literally. Your statute uses the same KEY words that MI uses: "... shall be based on ..."

The definition of "basis" includes "the principal component of something" and "something on which something else is established or based." (Merriam-Webster) Your statutes do not provide any definition for the word "based" or the term it's used within - therefore, it is intended by the legislature to be used as defined in a common dictionary.

For cheap thrills, I might also point out the CA statutes also use this same, exact verbiage - but that's a debate for another day.

Therefore - you might ask for a written directive on this, as I did ... and that is how I learned that indeed I can 'base' an identity on some primary bit of evidence (D/L), and build satisfactory evidence that 'Name Variant A' = SAME PERSON AS 'Name Variant B'. That is, after-all, what we do - identify people.

It is my opinion that notaries are inclined to place 99% of their focus on how a name variant is presented, rather than consider all the other components as well - photograph, description, lack of any evidence of fraudulent intent, logical reason for any particular name variant (divorce, marriage, common nick-name such as Bill/William, etc.)

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 3:28pm
Msg #416109

Re: Disagree ...

You missed the fact that it says the ID must be CURRENT. If a person has not been known by a name for a number of years, they certainly don't possess current satisfactory identification in that previous name, do they?

Reply by NJDiva on 3/26/12 3:30pm
Msg #416110

Sure they do...their marriage license. n/m

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 3:33pm
Msg #416112

Re: Sure they do...their marriage license.

Sorry, no carrot. Satisfactory identification must be a government form of identification that is unexpired, contain the name, photo, signature and physical description.

Reply by NJDiva on 3/26/12 3:37pm
Msg #416115

lol...Ronnie, easy does it...geesh...if she's proving her

current name and show's proof (the marriage license) of her FORMER name, then it would stand to reason that the burden of proof has been established.

You're waaaaay over thinking it.

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 3:42pm
Msg #416118

Re: lol...Ronnie, easy does it...geesh...if she's proving her

I posed this very question to our regulators. The response I received is that I am not authorized to deviate from the requirement of "satisfactory identity" and that I should not let others tell me how to do my job because I am the one that carries the license and I am the one that is subject to reprimand, loss of license and civil lawsuit if I don't comply. She emphasized don't let others tell me how to do my job. I think the answer was really quite clear enough for me.

Reply by BBuchler/CA on 3/27/12 2:28pm
Msg #416202

Re: Sure they do...their marriage license.

If you've not been to Knotts Berry Farm, then you are unaware that you too can have a marriage license - from Knotts Berry Farm. For about $20. Is it legal - nope. Is it valid - nope.

That is why "government-issued ID" is the standard. Sure, you can get fake ID, but that's much harder than a fake marriage license. In no way, shape or form would I use a marriage license to "identify" someone or use it to "connect the dots." It isn't a 2nd piece of ID as listed as acceptable.

We identify people who they are TODAY, not who they were 6 years ago. And what if they have been "multiple" people in-between. Is that marriage license the most current one, or just one of many?

It just isn't worth the money, time, or reputation to bend or stretch the rules.

Reply by NJDiva on 3/28/12 5:08pm
Msg #416371

hmmm, Knotts Berry Farm huh?

Well, if you are a notary public and cannot differentiate a Knotts Berry Farm Marriage license to a certified legal document, maybe you're in the wrong business. After all, one of our main functions (as I understand it) is to take due diligence and be able to detect a fake ID (or a certified document?) Wouldn't you have an idea as to whether a document is authentic? I'm pretty confident that there would be an obvious distinction between the two of them.

Additionally, if the signature on that marriage license matches the signature on the ID, I'm pretty certain that they most likely would be the same person.

I am not suggesting under any circumstances to break the law, but what I am saying is that you have to be able to come up with some kind of a solution in this NSA field (IMO). If you are not able to do so then you may as well get out of this business. Most married women (logically if they been married for any certain amount of time) are not going to be able to provide the type of identification that meets these guidelines.

My question to you is what is your solution?

Reply by NJDiva on 3/26/12 3:34pm
Msg #416113

their marriage license connects both of the names. n/m

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 3:36pm
Msg #416114

Re: their marriage license connects both of the names.

It does not satisfy the terms of satisfactory identification and the WA State DOL has sent notification prohibiting us from making any exception whatsoever to the statute. The DOL rules, not the notary.

Reply by NJDiva on 3/26/12 3:39pm
Msg #416116

so then obviously there's no solution as far as you're

concerned. I guess there's no working for that company for you if that's the case.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 3/26/12 3:43pm
Msg #416119

I'd be very interested ...

in reading whatever your DOL has written that specifically prohibits what the statute has written, as I follow these sorts of things.

There is always the 2nd method around this problem - WTTA = Who Took Title As.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 3/26/12 3:40pm
Msg #416117

The person has current ID,

you base identification of the person on that. You then use secondary evidence to tie the two names together - divorce decree, marriage certificate, old expired license, depends on the situation and what documentation the person has.

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 3:46pm
Msg #416120

Re: The person has current ID,

Unfortunately we are not given that liberty. I am set to testify before the rules committee and this is one of the rules for which I will be requesting a change to meet the needs of the industry. In the meantime, it is custom in WA to draw a Deed "Jane Marie Doe, who acquired title as Jane Marie Steppenwolf".... grants to..... Then only have her sign as her current legal name, Jane Marie Doe, and notarize as such.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/26/12 3:27pm
Msg #416108

You could do it if you know the person personally, or if you can find a credible witness who you know personally who can certify the former name.

Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/26/12 3:53pm
Msg #416121

Unfortunately it wasn't an option in this instance. I suppose a law school education does tend to make one more circumspect than some others might be.

Reply by SharonMN on 3/26/12 5:01pm
Msg #416124

Will they let you change it to:

Acknowledged before me by Jane Marie Doe, who represented that she was formerly known as Jane Marie Steppenwolf....

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/26/12 5:06pm
Msg #416125

Words like "based on" or "on the basis of" in laws and regulations do leave one wondering how far one may go. I think it is foolish for SOS offices to keep giving out the same (or worse, different) advice about these situations over the phone or by email, and not post the answers on their websites. No one really wants to trust the advice from the SOS office after it has been relayed by an anonymous Internet poster, both because anonymous Internet posters are not reliable, and because only excerpts of the phone conversation or email are usually given, and there could be something in the missing context that would change the meaning.

I think it is fantastic that you will be addressing a rules committee to try to get this improved.

Reply by BrendaTx on 3/27/12 7:10pm
Msg #416242

Are you an attorney? n/m

Reply by NJDiva on 3/28/12 10:23am
Msg #416315

I think VT Syrup is an atty...am I mistaken? n/m

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/28/12 12:17pm
Msg #416331

Re: I think VT Syrup is an atty...am I mistaken?

No, I'm not an attorney.

Reply by NJDiva on 3/28/12 4:35pm
Msg #416368

Sorry, I was mistaking you for someone else. n/m