Posted by Salvador Avalos on 11/6/12 2:55pm
Msg #442395

Notarize AKA

We notarize names, but unless I'm missing something if I write AKA into an acknowledgement in would be indicating capacity. Title company insist on me writing the Jone Doe AKA John DOT. I will only write the name on the ID. Am I wrong?

Reply by Salvador Avalos on 11/6/12 2:57pm
Msg #442396

The last post is in regards to California Law

Reply by Priscilla Witman on 11/6/12 3:05pm
Msg #442397

I do not write AKA anything in any certificates. I have no way of knowing that someone was once that AKA. Besides, in California we don't certify capacity; IMO that could be considered a capacity. Most AKA statements I've seen are jurats anyway, so the signer is swearing that they are/were known as so-and-so, that should satisfy the claim to capacity.
The only thing I write in my certificates is the person who appeared before me, nothing else. Never a problem. The notary is responsible for their certificates being accurate and correct. I keep it as simple as I can. Hope this helps.

Reply by sueharke on 11/6/12 6:31pm
Msg #442432

This has not happened to me yet. I know several people in the entertainment field. Many use a AKA name as a writer, actor, etc rather than their legal name. How would you notarize a documents in the AKA name and the only ID he or she would have might be their SAG or union membership card? What would you consider acceptable ID in this case.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 11/6/12 7:38pm
Msg #442442

Not sure I understand your questions, but ....


<< How would you notarize a documents in the AKA name>>

You wouldn't. Ever.

<<and the only ID he or she would have might be their SAG or union membership card? What would you consider acceptable ID in this case. >>

Acceptable ID in CA is government issued. Period.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 11/6/12 3:05pm
Msg #442398

Right

Title company can insist all it wants; we cannot certifiy AKAs. We notarize the signature of the person signing. He can have all the AKAs he wants, but that's none of our business and beyond our authority. He provides proof of his identity and signs. You notarize that signature. We cannot say in our notarial certificates that he's also known as someone else. The Signature/Name Aff should take care of any AKAs he's got.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/6/12 4:48pm
Msg #442412

I think it would be the same process for any notary who has decided (s)he won't certify a capacity. First, decide if you have satisfactory proof of both names, for example, a state driver license with one name, a US passport with the other, both of which are valid, have the same DOB, both have photos that look like the signer, etc. IF AND ONLY IF you have established two names for the same natural person (not a company) then you could put, for example, Mary Jones AKA Mary Smith on the certificate. In as much as this is not a case of one natural person representing a different natural person or a corporation, it isn't a capacity issue.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 11/6/12 6:23pm
Msg #442431

I don't believe one signature covers all AKAs for purposes of notarization. I know that with one signature on a Signature/Name Affidavit, a signer is saying he is all those AKAs., but my acknolwegement is not sayng he is all those AKAs. I am identifying just one person signing.

I know there has been much discussion whether AKA is a capacity or not, but the point is that as a notary, I have identified Mr. X and am notarizing his signature. Now, if Mr. X is also known as Mr. Y and Mr. Z and can show me all the IDs in those names, I'm stlll notarizing one signature per name. Even on the Signature/Name Aff in which he might be acknowledging that he is also known by other identities, I'm still notarizing his signature based on the one ID he presented, and I'm not adding "AKA" on my certificates for all the other identities he might happen to have. Occasionally, loan pkgs will have Mr. X sign his Signature/Name Affidavit as Mr. X and as Mr. Y and as Mr. Z and whatever. But I'm still notarziing the signature of Mr. X only. If somebody wants me to acknowledge Mr. X as Mr. Z, then provide a document that he signs as Mr. Z ,and I will notarize that signature that Mr. Z signed that document. I don't think it's my job to compare government issued IDs, signatures, DOBs, or anything else on multiple IDs in an attempt to certify multiple identities appeared before me.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/6/12 8:26pm
Msg #442447

So what if he signs "Joe X AKA Joe Z" and proves both names with current ID that is acceptable in your state, and wants you to write "Joe X AKA Joe Z" on the certificate? You ask "Are you signing as Mr. X or Mr. Z" and he says both. So do you turn away a person who has presented proper ID? Since you are required to act when people present proper ID, understand the document, and offer the required fee, can't he turn you in for failing to act when he met all the requirements?

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 11/6/12 9:15pm
Msg #442451

<<So what if he signs "Joe X AKA Joe Z" and proves both names with current ID that is acceptable in your state, and wants you to write "Joe X AKA Joe Z" on the certificate?

I suppose he can sign how he wants, He can't tell me how to complete my certificate. I'm notarizing the signature of one person.

<<You ask "Are you signing as Mr. X or Mr. Z" and he says both.>>

I would say pick one or no go.

<<So, do you turn away a person who has presented proper ID?>>

I'm turning away as many identities as I need to in order to get down to one. And, no, I would not turn away "a person" with proper ID.

<<Since you are required to act when people present proper ID, understand the document, and offer the required fee, can't he turn you in for failing to act when he met all the requirements?>>

I guess he can. Good luck with that.

Look, I'n not certifying or notarizing capacities, AKAs, DBAs, marital status, etc. I'm notarizing one signature for one person. Notaries in other states can do whatever they say their states allow, of course. I'm just speaking for myself.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/7/12 6:27am
Msg #442470

GOLDGIRL/CA wrote "I suppose he can sign how he wants, He can't tell me how to complete my certificate. I'm notarizing the signature of one person."

Well, yes indeed, you are notarizing ONE person; that's why it isn't a capacity issue. But the one person is signing two signatures. It is well established throughout the country that a person can engage in commerce using more than one name at the same time, so long as there is no purpose of deception. I think you made up the part about only being able to notarize one signature. I don't think you will be able to find any law or rule that says that of the various names a person is allowed to use, only one of them is eligible for notarization, or that only one name may be notarized for the same person in a notarial certificate.

If you can find such a law or rule, that would be really interesting and I'd like to see it too.

Reply by Rowsy/CA on 11/7/12 10:09am
Msg #442494

I'm curious about a person who has two gov't ids. In CA, it certainly would be questionable to have two drivers licenses. When I've presented ID after a legal name change, where there was reference to my earlier name in the documents, I also had to present the proof of a court's approval of the change.
Here below is the wording in the CA SOS handbook. Seems to me that a current legal ID in a different name would be evidence that, at least at times, the person is NOT the individual he/she claims to be.

Satisfactory Evidence – “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..."

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/7/12 10:22am
Msg #442495

Well, presenting two CA driver's licenses with different names would be suspicious, if the presenter described both of them as being currently in force. But two different IDs, both of them government issued, are not suspicious if there is a plausible explanation for the different names. For example, a teacher ID issued by a government-operated school to a female teacher in her maiden name, which she uses for teaching, would be satisfactory ID in some states. So would a driver's license issued in the same person's married name, which she uses for most purposes away from school.

Another example would be an immigrant or visitor from eastern Asia, who has a Asian-sounding birth name, and also a European-sounding given name which he uses which is easier for Americans to say and spell. I had a college roommate from Taiwan who did that, and he had ID in both names (Taiwan passport and CA driver's license).

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/8/12 4:10am
Msg #442589

Our notary law says that we can use "one" form of ID that meets the requirements. So for basic ID purposes, our "satisfactory evidence" has to be based on only one ID. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to looking at a second government issued ID to get a comfort level that I have the right person in front of me, but we can only use ONE to document our satisfactory evidence. So if the person wanted to sign with an AKA that depended on two different forms of ID to support the whole name, that wouldn't fly, IMO, here in California.

The only way I could conceive of allowing an AKA in a notary certificate would be if both names were on the very same piece of ID - but I don't think I'd feel comfortable with that, either. Maybe it's just something ingrained in CA notaries... This is really nit-picky, but while someone might be able to provide satisfactory evidence that they're the same person as the one named in the document, that sounds like something a little bit different from certifying how they're "known". That just feels to me like it's taking things up a notch to something not in evidence. And if it's included in our notary certificate, in CA at least, we are certifying under penalty of perjury that it's true.

For example, think about all the different name variations a man (to avoid the confusion of maiden vs married names for the moment) can have on a Signature/Name Aff. I've had people scratch out variations shown on that document that could be supported by their ID, yet they say they've NEVER used that name variation, and write "never known as" or something similar, instead of a signature by that name. Just from looking at their ID, we have no way of knowing which, of all possible AKAs that could be derived from that person's name, they have actually used.

Here's an example:

Name on valid ID: John Quincy Adams

Some potential AKAs: John Adams; John Q. Adams; J. Q. Adams; J. Quincy Adams; Quincy Adams;

Potentially, we could ID him for any of those names that might be on a document he is signing, IMO. But we have no way of knowing for sure which, if any, of the other variations he has ever used - or been "known as". (And this isn't even getting into nicknames - but I'm not going there!)

I hope this isn't as clear as mud.