Posted by notarydi/CA on 11/12/12 11:34am
Msg #443086
what would you have done......
signing scenario is this.....one borrower two sets of loan docs. one set is refi of his investment property in CA, the other set is refi of his investment property in Texas. CA docs show vesting as John D. Smith, Texas docs have vesting as John David Smith. He presents me with proper i.d. as John David Smith. No problem. I start my spiel on how to sign the docs, etc., and he says, "well, I never sign my middle initial or middle name and I'm not going to sign that way". I politely explain why he needs to sign as vested and point out on the lender instructions where it says he must sign exactly as vested. He promptly picks up his cell phone and calls the loan officer who tells him and me that he can sign however he wants to. She told us that he can sign with just his first and last name if he wants to. Said, "it won't be a problem and she will take care of it". So, he signs both sets of docs "John Smith". His signature is very legible and you can tell it is just first and last name. So, do you notarize him as John Smith (signature) or John D. Smith or John David Smith (vesting/i.d.)? I feel like this is a very basic question that I should know the answer to, however, in all the years that I have been doing this, the situation has never come up. And, yes, I am waiting for that phone call from the escrow/lender that says they need to re-draw and he has to sign as vested.....
| Reply by jba/fl on 11/12/12 11:50am
Msg #443090
As his ID states. As for signature, whatever he signs is it.
I was questioned recently by my hiring party since my BO did much the same. I cited the reasons that the BO gave me as to why he signed the way he did. I told the BO to be ready to defend his signature the way he signed it. The lender then agreed that that was the only signature he had available on other docs and that the consistency counted for something.
It sounds to me that you disagree with the BO's statement of "this is how I always sign". I think you just need to defend the BO's statements - JMHO
| Reply by MistarellaFL on 11/12/12 11:53am
Msg #443091
I would have signed my notarial certificate with the name-wording found on the docs, no matter what he signed.
And first, I would have let hiring party know of what LO asserted to you, in order to CYA from an LO denial later on. Sometimes the hiring party can work miracles you can't, and sometimes I've found that some things really don't matter...not me to figure that out.
After you've CYA, if it has to be redrawn, not your problem and you should get both fees IMO.
| Reply by HisHughness on 11/12/12 12:27pm
Msg #443093
I disagree, but it's moot
***I would have signed my notarial certificate with the name-wording found on the docs***
You are not identifying him based on the documents, you are identifying him based on the ID he has presented, so I think that is what should be used for the notarial certificate. In this case, the ID will be John David Smith, whereas the docs will be John David Smith or John D. Smith. So, whether the notarial certificate is John David Smith, John D. Smith, or J.D. Smith is academic; you're covered.
| Reply by PegiT_MN on 11/12/12 1:03pm
Msg #443098
I agree with Hugh . n/m
| Reply by Buddy Young on 11/12/12 2:15pm
Msg #443108
Re: Hugh is correct!!!!!!!! n/m
| Reply by MistarellaFL on 11/13/12 6:53am
Msg #443140
Re: I disagree, but it's moot
But, I have identified and am satisfied John David Smith is one and the same as John D Smith, the person named in the document and in the vesting that has been chosen.
In FL, ID does not have to "match" the name in the docs. We have to have a reasonable certainty that the person named in the docs is the one presenting ID.
The lender is not looking for identification of John David Smith, just John D Smith.
If his ID supports this, why would I over complicate things by notarizing a name that is not on the docs?
Although not in FL, I know there are some states that require the notarization to reflect the name vested on the deed/mtg. and a re-draw would be required.
Keep it simple.
| Reply by Carolyn Breckenridge on 11/13/12 6:58am
Msg #443141
Re: I disagree, but it's moot
I agree. Very simple.
| Reply by notarydi/CA on 11/12/12 12:28pm
Msg #443094
well, I did let hiring party know right away about what had happened. CYA is always good. However, it was late Friday night and everything went to voice mail. I usually just state my position once with borr or loan officer and then move on. Not worth the time or energy to argue about it sometimes. Unless, it's something illegal. So, everything got signed the way the borr and LO wanted it done. We'll see what title and lender say. Have great relationship with title co (hiring party), so, we'll see what happens.
| Reply by Pro Mobile Notary on 11/12/12 1:31pm
Msg #443101
CA laws governing notaries are quite specific on this matter.
Did you look at his signature on his ID? That is the key. If his signature on his ID does not have his middle name or middle initial you are safe in letting him sign that way on the loan docs regardless of what the signature block shows. Again, this is CA notary law, but that does not necessarily mean the lender is aware of the CA notary laws governing this matter and they could object to a signature matching his ID and not matching the signature block. If I were on that signing I would have taken a picture of his ID with my camera phone and print it out to return with the docs with an explanation of what you did and why.
CA rules generally state if the name on the ID has more than the 'legal' signature, that is okay.
If his ID said John Jones, but he wanted to sign John D. Jones, that would not be acceptable in CA.
| Reply by HisHughness on 11/12/12 2:08pm
Msg #443107
***CA rules generally state if the name on the ID has more than the 'legal' signature, that is okay.***
I've got a problem with this post. I may have more than one, but I know I have at least that many.
To begin with, as I've pointed out time after time, I know of no jurisdiction where something called a "legal" signature as a <specific> configuration of one's signature exists. If you sign a dcoument, whether it is as Pro Mobile Notary, P.M. Notary, P. Mobile Notary, Pro M. Notary, or P. Notary, THAT is your signature and it is legal. There is, of course, one's customary signature. There may be one's accepted signature. Or one's acknowledged signature. Or one's tolerated signature. Whatever it may be called, if you sign a docment with your name, THAT is your signature and it is legal.
Second, I do not know California law, and I do not know it with respect to what is required as a signature on loan docs. What I do know, though, is that we repeatedly go through the exercise on this forum of having someone claim something is the law, when actually it is only their understanding of the law as shaped by constant erroneous repetition of the same misconceptions. Thus, I strongly suspect this statement, when it says that is California law, is wrong, and I'd like to see a cite: "If his signature on his ID does not have his middle name or middle initial you are safe in letting him sign that way on the loan docs regardless of what the signature block shows. Again, this is CA notary law..."
Likewise, I'd like to see a cite to this: "If his ID said John Jones, but he wanted to sign John D. Jones, that would not be acceptable in CA." That may be California law, but in other jurisdictions it is a myth.
| Reply by BrendaTx on 11/12/12 3:03pm
Msg #443111
Hugh is right, Pro Mo No
You are talking about notary myth. It would be so great if posters would determine that they know what they are saying is true before posting it and promoting things that are not true.
I do not believe that you can cite the claims that you have made. If so, they would have been cited a long time ago.
(PS - We know that you are an economist and are in demand on the speakers' circuit.)
| Reply by Pro Mobile Notary on 11/12/12 6:03pm
Msg #443112
Hi Hughness. I spent six hours in a notary class on Saturday to renew my notary commission.
This very subject was involved in a very lengthy discussion and this is what the instructor of the course laid out for everyone.
What I posted was my my opinion or my interpretation of the law, but rather a near verbatim restating the words of the instructor that spends a lot of time in the SOS office in Sacramento. I cannot speak to what other states require in this situation.
| Reply by HisHughness on 11/12/12 6:25pm
Msg #443115
***What I posted was my my opinion or my interpretation of the law, but rather a near verbatim restating the words of the instructor***
Unfortunately, Howard, notary instructors -- of all stripes -- tend to be just as bad at transmuting a "best practice" or a "good practice" or a "wise practice" into a practice that is required by law. And when they do it, it comes cloaked with the mantle of authority, which cements it even more as an erroneous legal requirement.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/12/12 7:20pm
Msg #443116
I have to agree, Hugh. I had the same reaction to that post as you did. The statement referred to is one commonly taught and strongly promoted by notary instructors here, but I've never seen anything in the actual government or civil code that even addresses this.
Teachers are imperfect human beings like the rest of us (I know because I used to be one), and however assertively they promote a point, that doesn't mean it's always going to be correct. (That's also true of the good folks at the SOS office who have prepared the required training materials.) In fact, it's not that difficult to become a notary teacher in our state. Further, I suspect there's a tendency to teach from the "lesson plans" rather than from the text of the law itself.
I disabused myself a long time ago of the idea that if a teacher said it, or if it was written somewhere, etc., that it must be true, but it's all too easy to fall back into that trap.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/12/12 7:51pm
Msg #443118
I'm with Hugh and Janet on this. There simply is no such rule in CA law. It's something that is commonly taught in some notary classes as an example of a "best practice" but it is not an actual rule or law.
The law says that we are to identify the signer using satisfactory evidence -- which may or may not be actual government issued identification. Said satisfactory evidence might be credible witnesses.
State law is very clear about it:
"Satisfactory evidence is 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 meeting certain requirements or (B) the oath of a single credible witness or (C) the oaths of two credible witnesses. (California Civil Code section 1185(b).)"
Does that mean the the more than/less than mantra doesn't fit in to that? Not necessarily... but it doesn't mean it fits, either... nor that it's even a rule.
Notary teachers aren't perfect. They don't know everything, and they do not speak for the Secretary of State. They are a great resource, yes, but they can also be wrong. We all can.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/12/12 2:32pm
Msg #443110
"CA rules generally state if the name on the ID has more than the 'legal' signature, that is okay."
Which CA rule says that?
| Reply by LKT/CA on 11/12/12 8:14pm
Msg #443121
<<< I start my spiel on how to sign the docs, etc., and he says, "well, I never sign my middle initial or middle name and I'm not going to sign that way".>>>
All you can do is inform the borrower of lender instructions. After that, the ball is in his/her court to either comply or sign however he/she desides. This is one reason I always include a copy of the ID with the docs. Typically, a person's signature is fairly consistent and how they sign on their ID is (usually) how they sign everything else. The TC can compare the signature on docs to the signature on the ID. Thus far, I've never had a return phone call regarding the borrower's signatures.
<<< So, do you notarize him as John Smith (signature) or John D. Smith or John David Smith (vesting/i.d.)?>>>>
I do both, depending upon how common the borrower's name is (or not). For example: If the signer's name is Mike Lee Jones on I.D , and Mike L. Jones or M.L. Jones on docs, I'll notarize per the I.D. name.
If the signer's name on I.D. is Rupert Maximillian Von Hoffslingersteed but on docs it's Rupert M. Von Hoffslingersteed or simply R.M. Von Hoffslingersteed, then I'll notarize per the name on the docs.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/13/12 5:50am
Msg #443134
I have a question about what you would have done ...
if his signature were NOT legible?
The idea that a person whose signature is legible should be governed by some different 'law' or rule than a person whose signature is NOT legible is just silly. How would that law be written?
If you are charged with confirming the identity of the person before you (person, not NAME, but person) with the person named on loan documents, and you have multiple bits of identifying information to cross-reference with ID and what's on loan docs (name/variant, age, address), and a photo w/description that matches the person sitting in front of you - you are either reasonably satisfied that the person IS whomever is named, or you are not.
If you ARE reasonably satisfied, the variant used on the documents is the person you've identified. If you're satisfied that Joe Blow is Joe Q. Blow is Joe Quincy Blow - the name you put in your cert should be the name used within the document, regardless of what variant is on the ID. The often-mentioned practice of ignoring the variant used on the document, and instead putting the ID-variant in the cert is an attempt at an end-run around being responsible for what you have actually done - you have identified a PERSON, satisfied enough to DO the notarization but somehow altering your level of satisfaction and limiting it to a variant YOU choose.
To my thinking, that doesn't make sense. It's the same as saying "Well, he COULD be Joe Quincy Blow, like it says on this document that I have notarized, BUT I am only satisfied that he is Joe Q. Blow - so I am hereby conditioning this notarization by ONLY writing the person's identifying name variant as Joe Q. Blow."
You are either satisfied he IS or he is NOT the person you identified, and then performed a notarization for.
One last point - in my own state (MI), the name printed in the mtg vesting, beneath the signature line and within the notarial cert must match in order to record. The practice of conditioning your cert to a different variant of the person's name would negate recording.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/13/12 6:03am
Msg #443135
One detail to add, regarding loan docs ...
I'm 100% confident in this as an "Always" rule - the signature of the person you've identified should remain consistent on all documents, INCLUDING the Name Affidavit.
In my past 'employee' life, I saw tens of thousands of loans closed by thousands of closers/NSA's and it was unnervingly common for borrowers to be asked by the NSA to ALTER their signature on the Name Affidavit from the signature used on the rest of the documents (I suspect under the belief that somehow forcing the signature change to 'match' a variant in a legible manner). THIS NEGATES the purpose of the Signature Affidavit.
The Signature Affidavit is the signer's sworn statement that "THIS-X-SIGNATURE" is MY legal signature for THIS variant of my name "Printed Name". When you have the signer ALTER their signature from what was used on all the other documents - you see now how it negates the Affidavit? Now the Aff is saying "THIS" is my signature ... and the result is the same as saying "and all those other signatures on all those other documents that don't look like "THIS" are NOT my legal signature."
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/13/12 9:33am
Msg #443163
Re: One detail to add, regarding loan docs ...
Nearly all literate people have a customary signature, but I have never seen any law or rule making the customary signature a legal signature. A person is perfectly free to sign a paper note with a ballpoint pen in the cursive script typically taught in US primary schools in the 20th century, sign the mortgage with a quill pen in an italic script from the 15th century, sign a compliance agreement by clicking a "sign here" button with a mouse, and sign a signature affidavit with an electronic pen that is awkward to use and produces writing that doesn't look much like any of their other writing. Then they can slam their right hand in a cupboard door and finish the signing with their left hand. The title company and lender might not be pleased, but it would be perfectly legal.
| Reply by MistarellaFL on 11/13/12 10:48am
Msg #443182
Although it may be perfectly legal,
It may be unacceptable to the lender or the TC, and may cause the nonacceptance from the funder or the insurer, therefore, no loan.
It's not a pissing contest, it's their ability to feel confident that they have a legal recourse in the future if needed.
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/13/12 10:57am
Msg #443186
Re: Although it may be perfectly legal,
I absolutely agree the lender and title company will want the papers signed in a way that not only meets minimum legal requirements, but which they have a reasonable chance of proving of the signatures are questioned. I don't know at exactly what point in the process it's too late for the lender to back out, but until they get to that point, I'm sure they'd use their discretion to decline the loan if they had real doubts about the signatures.
But describing a customary signature as a legal signature only creates confusion; they are two different concepts.
| Reply by MistarellaFL on 11/13/12 11:10am
Msg #443187
Re: Although it may be perfectly legal,
Point taken VT Syrup.
I believe the lender can back out at any time for any reason before disbursement, and in some cases (mtg fraud being one) the lender can declare a loan in default after the loan has been dispersed, and can foreclose on the property.
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/13/12 11:55am
Msg #443196
No debate on that
I used the term "legal signature" in quoting the usual verbiage contained in most Signature Affidavits. I know of no law that dictates how a person should execute their signature. My entire post was intended only to address the common practice of having a person execute their signature on the Name Aff in a different manner than the person used on all the other documents.
Legal = one thing, lender's money = another.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/13/12 3:18pm
Msg #443226
Re: No debate on that
Thanks for posting on this issue, Renee, and for shedding some much needed light on this subject. For further clarification, when you say "their signature on the Name Aff", are you just talking about the signature often at the top which usually requests a signature that matches the Note and Security Instrument, or are you talking about the signatures for all the variations, if there's a separate signature line for each one?
| Reply by ReneeK_MI on 11/13/12 3:41pm
Msg #443233
Janet - yes, that's the one.
I'm talking about the first one at the top, the one that is for the name variant used on the loan docs. =)
The signatures for any additional variants may or may not look exactly like the first one. The Aff is the borrower's sworn statement to the effect of "if you type my name this way, and ask me to execute my signature for that, it looks like this ..."
Many people never alter their signature, they have one signature and that's all they ever use. I never infringe on their right to execute their 'mark' however they design it, as long as what is used on the loan docs is consistent (including on their DL). I don't LEAD them into this - I ask them to sign their name "as it's prepared here (and I'll point out 'with your middle initial' or whatever) ..." and that's enough to spark those particular people into preparing for a push/shove. They'll say "I ONLY sign MY name this way and nobody's gonna tell me ..." I just say "No problem, I can see from your ID that it's how you sign your name - have at it."
While I'm certainly not above making a mistake, I can say I don't ever recall having a single issue over how someone executed their signature - and that includes Provident. I distinctly recall one Provident where the guy had a very legible signature, and it was clearly just a first initial and last name. It matched his D/L. I said "this lender runs a very tight ship, and asks that you sign your name AS PREPARED ... whew, he went straight to push/shove, I said "no problem, I'll make a note of it." I added a note to the top of the pkg - to the effect that Borrower states his signature is as on ID, never varies - and all was well with Planet Earth.
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/13/12 2:17pm
Msg #443220
I would consider three ideas. (1) The acknowledgement is an oral ceremony. (2) The acknowledgement certificate records what happened in the oral ceremony. (3) The is only a little guidance from the law on how a person is to write his signature.
So once I realized he didn't want to sign as printed under the line, for the CA property, I'd ask "So, even though you're not using your middle initial, you are John D. Smith, you are the property owner, and you are signing as John D. Smith of your free will for the reasons mentioned in the instrument?" "Yes." Then I'd enter John D. Smith on the notarial certificate. Then similarly for the TX property except I'd ask about "David" and write "John David Smith" if I was satisfied with the oral answers. I'd note the unusual circumstance in my journal.
All the above presumes I haven't come across some information suggesting something is amiss.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/13/12 4:00pm
Msg #443241
I've had this exact situation before, except with a woman, and one set of docs. Nice, neat handwriting, but she insisted that she never signs her middle initial and wasn't going to now - and she was certain it wouldn't be a problem.
I told her that if the lender felt like the documents were undersigned that they might request a redraw and that it might delay her funding. I wrote out a note explaining our conversation and what I had disclosed to her, but that she insisted on signing with her usual signature (I don't remember how I worded it). Then I had her approve it and sign it. Sure enough, they had us back together the next day to resign everything. I got paid my full fee twice.
|
|
