Posted by Eric Andrist on 8/25/13 12:47pm
Msg #481819

ID/Marriage question

I had my first job where the ID didn't match the document exactly.

The document was: Mary Smith Jones. Current Driver's License is Mary Jones. But she also has her previous driver's license with Mary Smith, which just expired in 2012. So both ID's have all the names Identification numbers and address on them. Can I just accept both Driver's Licenses?

Reply by Yoli/CA on 8/25/13 1:11pm
Msg #481824

Was the expired license issued within five years? Please refer to CA Civil Code 1185 and the Identification section (page 8) of our Handbook.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 8/25/13 1:44pm
Msg #481832

Darnit....no...I forgot it was the "issued" and not "expired." It was issued in 2007.

Reply by MW/VA on 8/25/13 1:13pm
Msg #481825

I will never understand the CA concept of ID's matching

exactly. As a notary, you need to be satisfied that she is the person that she says she is, and the correct person named in the documents.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 8/25/13 1:19pm
Msg #481827

Re: I will never understand the CA concept of ID's matching

That is a misconception.

Nowhere in our Handbook is it written that ID's must match exactly. What it does state is:

"When completing a certificate of acknowledgment or a jurat, a notary public is required
to certify to the identity of the signer of the document. (Civil Code sections 1185(a), 1189,
Government Code section 8202) Identity is established if the notary public is presented with
satisfactory evidence of the signer’s identity. (Civil Code section 1185(a))
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 MW/VA on 8/25/13 1:30pm
Msg #481829

I agree. Why does it come up so frequently about this

thing about ID's/names on documents matching exactly? If that were the case, I wouldn't be about do to a lot of the loan signings.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 8/25/13 1:56pm
Msg #481836

Re: I agree. Why does it come up so frequently about this

Dunno.

Maybe people misconstrue TC/lender's instructions that say borrowers are to sign exactly as their name appears and carry that over to thinking that ID must have name exactly as it appears on docs. Just a guess ......

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/25/13 2:02pm
Msg #481838

Maybe this will help.

You have someone with a doc with the name Jane Smith Doe. Her ID is Jane Doe. How do you know that the Jane Doe in front of you is Jane Smith Doe? It could be Jane Alexis Doe, Jane Lee Doe...etc etc.

Jane Smith Doe is the same as Jane Doe
But Jane Doe is not necessarily the same as Jane Smith Doe.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 8/25/13 2:11pm
Msg #481840

Re: Maybe this will help.

I am not aware of any "CA concept" of IDs having to match.

However, (speaking just for me & for Linda, too, apparently), if the name on the ID does not "substantially match" the name on the document, then I don't know if I have the person the lender wants to sign the docs. Example: If the name on the docs says Henry Jones Smith but the ID says only Henry Smith, then it's a big no go, because the docs have introduced a name (Jones) for which borrower has no ID.

That said... here's the Big Catch: If, it's the other way around, I'm good to go: If the ID reads Henry Jones Smith and the docs read Henry Smith, then OK by me. Still, how do I know I have right Henry Smith? I really don't. But at least all the names in the docs are covered.

I don't understand NSAs who "don't care" what the name on the docs is; they put "the name on the ID in the notary block." Given that position, if Betty Pumpernickle personally appeared before the notary, but Superman was named in the docs, how far is the NSA going to maintain their "I notarize the person who appears before me" position with no regard to the name on the docs? How many judgment calls is the NSA going to make?

I just had one last weekend: Richard G. Smith on the docs, but Ricky George Smith on ID (both DL & PP!). I would have notarized as his ID read, but TC said I had to notarize as Richard G. Sorry. No way. I guess he's Richard G.; who else would he be? Actually, I don't have the faintest idea who he is. Oh, yes, I do know: he's Ricky George. How am I supposed to know Richard is his "real name." I sure as heck am not even going to try to make that judgment call. Incidentally, he said every notary he's ever used, from the purchase to all previous refis and HELOCS, has called him out over this, but went ahead anyway. Guess the buck stopped with me. For better or worse. Yikes.

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/25/13 3:34pm
Msg #481853

Re: Maybe this will help. I'm going to chime in on this

Our (Calif ) notary laws are just that, "notary laws for California". ID's matching is for GNW, not loan signing work.

Once you are able to make the distinction, it's easy! I.D. the person who appears before you! Sign the Docs anyway you are instructed to do! As long as your ACKS and Jurats match your journal, who cares.

Docs (names) have problems that nobody wants to fix. However, for the loan to go through Docs must be signed as previously signed. Is our responsibility to make sure the loan is signed as instructed or be the qualifying entity that corrects a problem others are responsible for?

If is smell like a pig, it's a pig! If it smells like a rose, it's a rose. If you don't believe the person in front of you is who they say the are....walk. If the loan Docs smell like poop,....they are poop. Why is it so hard to understand that?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/25/13 3:56pm
Msg #481856

Re: Maybe this will help. I'm going to chime in on this

" ID's matching is for GNW, not loan signing work."

IMO those laws roll over into the loan signing work and are part and parcel of proper document execution. All loan docs are drawn and signed as title is held unless a change in vesting is accomplished beforehand - that better be the person you can ID or you're not notarizing any of the lender docs.


JMO

Reply by MW/VA on 8/25/13 8:10pm
Msg #481884

Yes, I think that's where the misconception comes into play. n/m

Reply by Eric Andrist on 8/27/13 11:33am
Msg #482111

Re: I will never understand the CA concept of ID's matching

Yes, I understand that. However...

Her current ID did not contain her maiden name, which was part of the name I needed to notarize. Her previous ID did not contain her married name, also part of the name to be notarized, and was not issued within 5 years.

So while it didn't "match," it also didn't have enough information to fulfill the ID requirement.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 8/25/13 2:26pm
Msg #481843

No way, for me, Eric.

This is not really a case of IDs not matching "exactly." It's a case of who is this woman? Is she Mary Smith Jones? Mary Jones? Mary Smith? Apparently Jones is her married name and she's taking title in her married name? But who knows? Not for me to figure out. The main problem is the docs introduce a name (Smith) for which she has no ID ... unless you refer to another ID ... which BTW probably has a hole punched in the expiration date by DMV?


In any case, I remember reading in a CA SOS newsletter that we are not allowed to combine IDs to make a full ID.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 8/25/13 2:36pm
Msg #481845

Re: No way, for me, Eric.

Good to know...thanks all. This was my first encounter with a different name on ID, so one I surely won't forget again. I have no problem doing it the way I'm supposed to, I just blanked out on the issued/expired part. However, now I see that we can't combine ID's either.

My pet peeve in this is that the wife doesn't go by Mary Smith Jones, the title company just put it on the document that way. Fortunately, there was only one she had to sign. But it seems like they should ask how her name is on the ID, so we don't run into this problem in the first place. I recall every time I've refinanced, I had to send them a copy of my ID. Even if they don't send it, it's a simple question to ask to make sure the names are correct on the documents.

The other odd things about this one: The wife is not currently on title, nor has she ever been. But there were documents listing her as the "seller." She didn't want to sign, so when I called the signing company to question it, they explained that since she technically owns the house via community property, she needed to release title to her husband for the refinance.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/25/13 4:02pm
Msg #481857

There' is no rule like that...

As the others have noted, it is a HUGE misconception that in CA it's are requirements that the name on an ID must exactly match the name on a document. Remember as a notary, you are identifying the person in front of you, and notarizing *that* person's signature.

Nowhere, anywhere are we told that names have to exactly match. The only direction we are given, in the law is in regard to acknowledgments (and only acknowledgments, not jurats) where we are told that we must have "satisfactory evidence that the person in front of you is the person "described" in the document and who signed it.

It's called the SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE rule, and is described in CA Civil Code 1185. It says, "'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..."

As I mentioned before, the only thing remotely close that we have about "matching" is in regard to acknowledgments (and only acknowledgments) in Civil Code 1185 where we are told, "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. 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..."

Again, it doesn't say we have to play the match game... or the more than less than game... we have to rely on common sense and the definition of "Satisfactory evidence", which, as stated in the handbook is an ABSENCE of information that would lead us to think that the person is not who they claim to be. If the document has a name of Jane Doe and the ID has a name of Jane Jones... yes, there's a possible issue when it comes to an acknowledgment. However, if they absolutely claim to be the same person, and the "description" in the document (whatever that might be) seems to match, and you reasonably beleive they are the same people... then you should be okay unless you have absolute proof that they are NOT who they claim to be.

In that situation, I simply write the name of the ID in my journal and in the notarial certificate. I do NOT play the match game to make people happy. If the person claims to be that person and I don't have a reasonable reason to think otherwise, then I will notarize their signature... again, though... I use the name on the ID presented in my journal and in the notarial certificate. If the document recipient doesn't like that... it's not MY problem. They should have prepared the documents otherwise if they wanted names to match... matching is not our responsibility or concern.

That's where the "penalty of perjury" bit comes in. When you notarize one's signature for an acknowledgment, you are asking them, is this you... did you sign this? If they say yes and you have no evidence to the contrary, how are you perjuring yourself? Remember, in CA, our certificates are so strictly worded for this very reason... it puts the responsibility on the signer, not the notary. As picky as CA is about this, there's a reason for it -- it protects the notaries as long as they use their common sense and document each act properly. IMO, proper documentation means using the name on the ID, not the name written on the documents. If there's a variation, and I'm satisfied they are the same person, in the notes of my journal, I'll make a notation about the pre-printed name. But again...remember, you are not notarizing the signature of some name written on a document, but the person in front of you with the ID presented.

As I said, I always put the name on the ID on the notarial certificate. Why? because that is the person in front of me, not a preprinted name on a document. I have no way of knowing if the person's name printed on a document actually *is* the person in front of me. That's not our job. If you're using the married name on the notary certificate to match the preprinted name on the docs, but relied on the maiden name for ID... then you might be putting yourself in trouble if you're audited because then the name on the certificate and in your journal don't match the Id presented.

Eric, regarding your example... remember that you are not allowed to rely on any form of ID that is not on the acceptable list. That includes expired IDs not issued in the last 5 years. That means once you ascertain that the ID is expired and not issued in the previous 5 years... you must immediately set it aside and not consider it. You can only rely on the valid, acceptable forms of ID.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 8/25/13 5:37pm
Msg #481865

Gee, Marian, guess what? We disagree (lol)

you say: << I have no way of knowing if the person's name printed on a document actually *is* the person in front of me. (Me: So true). That's not our job. (Me: So untrue) >>

Speaking strictly as an NSA: I strongly believe it is *my* job to make sure to the best of my ability that the person whose name is printed on the docs actually is the person in front of me. Why else am I there? Only to ID the person in front of me? What do I care who he/she is? I can do that with anyone, anywhere. The reason the lender (or whoever) is hiring me is to make sure their docs are signed by the correct people.

True, we never really *know* for sure who is appearing before us. IDs are phony, names are phony, people are phony. We can only do what we can do. Just like police, airline security, etc. rely on IDs, we do the same. When I do GNW, the name on the ID is all-important. It's the ONLY thing that matters. But when it comes to loan signing, I'm being hired as both a notary and a signing agent, and I'm going beyond merely IDing the person in front of me. I'm making pretty darn sure that it is also the same person who the lender wants signing those docs.

I will not be a party to someone taking title to real estate for which they have no ID or inadequate ID or borderline ID or whatever ID. As a notary, that's none of my business; as a loan signer, I believe that's among the things I'm being hired to do. Now, if lender or title is OK with "whatever ID," fine with me, but I'm checking first. Just like I checked on the Richard-Ricky thing. Title said no, they want Richard on the certificate. I can't ID him as Richard; they won't let me put Ricky on my certificate. Dead deal, no signing.

And only in a perfect world, will LOs/TCs/lenders/processors ever take the effort to "match" IDs to names on docs! We can always dream, tho.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/25/13 6:34pm
Msg #481874

Re: There' is no rule like that...

California's word order in their statute isn't so great, putting the least frequently encountered ID issue first in the statute. And it seem to me that Marian putting the ellipsis just before one of the most important words in the statute makes matters worse, in terms of understanding. That key word is "and". The notary has satisfactory evidence if there is an absence of information that the person before the notary is not who he claims to be AND one of the means of identification specified (credible witness(es) or specified ID document). The vast majority of the time, the signer presents ID or credible witness(es) who satisfy the statute. That's the norm. Having information that isn't the right person would be rare.

How might that come about? Maybe you have a day job as a bank teller, bar bouncer, car salesman, or some other job where you look at ID, and you remember the person came to you at your day job and used a different name. Maybe you saw the person's picture in the paper in the crime section. Maybe the person, during the appointment, told you the name on the ID isn't quite right, and gives some excuse about not being able to get the DMV to put the right name on the license. Any way you look at it, it's going to be rare.

Of course, this doesn't exactly address whether it's OK to put the name from the ID on the acknowledgement certificate, even though it is somewhat different from the name in the instrument. Is it the notary's job to judge that on the basis of reasonable reliance, the ID has sufficiently verified the name on the instrument, and the name on the instrument can be put in the acknowledgement certificate? Or should that be thrown into the lap of the person relying on the notarization. Should the person relying on the notarization be left to wonder why the notary wasn't willing to put the name from the instrument in the acknowledgement certificate?

As others have said, the notary can't be absolutely certain the signer is the person described in the instrument. But the notary has a much better shot at knowing than someone who wants to rely on the notarization, and has neither the notary nor the signer in front of him/her.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/25/13 6:54pm
Msg #481876

About ID, EMWTK!

How many have had documents fail because they used the name on the ID on the certificate rather than the name on the documents?

How many times do notaries have to turn back signings because the ID does not satisfy them with a satisfactory match to the documents?

How often do the names actually match?

If Linda S. Smith is in the documents, why do you accept Linda Sally Smith on the ID? That does not make a lick of sense to me in the context of more/less rule of thumb.

I have property in Brenda Middle Stone. My DL says Brenda Maiden Stone. I look forward to selling or encumbering it to see how that will work.

You see, these days, only my family knows my middle name. No credible witness there. Can't even get a DL with my middle name because I have no ID (except Birth Certificate) to do it. Can't even do a correction deed based on the ID arguments on the forum these days.

WAIT! I could probably give someone a POA to sign it for me and there would be no problem. You would just need to check the AIF's DL.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/25/13 7:40pm
Msg #481877

Re: About ID, EMWTK!

<<<If Linda S. Smith is in the documents, why do you accept Linda Sally Smith on the ID? That does not make a lick of sense to me in the context of more/less rule of thumb.>>>

Linda Sally Smith on ID can certainly be Linda S(ally) Smith on docs. However, Linda S. Smith on ID can in no way guarantee that she's Linda Sally Smith on docs. The "S" on ID can be anything....Samantha, SueAnn, Shannon, etc. When it comes to curtailing fraud, "maybe" is not an option.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/25/13 8:22pm
Msg #481885

Re: About ID, EMWTK!

** The "S" on ID can be anything....Samantha, SueAnn, Shannon, etc. When it comes to curtailing fraud, "maybe" is not an option. **

That's my point. The "S" could be anything but Sally. Mustn't the documents be redrawn based on the concept of having ID that matches documents? I think so.

It is hypocritical to pretend that notaries are capable of deciding if an S on the documents stands for Sally or Suzanna if they cannot use the same decision making process to realize that women may hold title in a name other than the one that is stated on their DL or that an S on a DL stands for Sally.

It's obviously a black or white, a do use judgment or don't use judgment proposition.

Without use of a notary's judgment, the documents MUST state what is on the DL. No exceptions. The less and more is bunk. Either a notary is allowed to use judgment, or not.

This I could live with. The other is inconsistent.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/25/13 8:46pm
Msg #481888

Re: About ID, EMWTK!

<<<That's my point. The "S" could be anything but Sally. Mustn't the documents be redrawn based on the concept of having ID that matches documents? I think so.>>>

We have to keep the two items in question distinct - the ID vs. the doc. The "S" on the ID could be anything but Sally on the *doc*, but the "S" on the doc CAN be the "Sally" on the *ID*. To recap:

Jane Sally Doe (ID) vs. Jane S. Doe (doc).....the S on the doc can be accepted as Sally on the ID. We *don't have to* entertain that the S is something other than Sally. We can accept that the S on the docs IS Sally on the ID.

Jane Sally Doe (doc) vs. Jane S. Doe (ID)....is the full middle name Sally? Can it be accepted as Sally? It's possible that it's Sally but it's also possible that it's Suzanna, or Shannon, or Shirley, or Sheila, etc... Now we *have* to entertain the notion that the S is something other than Sally. And if the S is something other than S, we could be notarizing the signature of someone who shouldn't be signing the doc. Who determines who should be signing the doc? The receiving entity - not the signer. It's their doc.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/25/13 8:48pm
Msg #481889

Correction

Should say: And if the S is something other than Sally, we could be notarizing the signature of someone who shouldn't be signing the doc.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/25/13 10:07pm
Msg #481895

Re: About ID, EMWTK!

Lisa, I understand.

I am not arguing with anyone about this, and I am clear on all the points you make. I just don't agree.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/25/13 11:12pm
Msg #481902

Re: About ID, EMWTK!

Fair enough - we'll agree to disagree ;-). I wasn't arguing either....or intending to argue...just wanted to clarify further.

Reply by JeffC/CA on 8/25/13 10:37pm
Msg #481898

Re: There' is no rule like that...

I disagree with part Marion's reply. Marion, you said, "The only direction we are given, in the law is in regard to acknowledgments (and only acknowledgments, not jurats) where we are told that we must have "satisfactory evidence that the person in front of you is the person "described" in the document and who signed it."

I think that we need satisfactory evidence when issuing oaths/affirmations regarding jurats because Govt. Code 8206 regarding all journal entries will include:

"(D) A statement as to whether the identity of a person making an acknowledgment or taking an oath or affirmation was based on satisfactory evidence. If identity was established by satisfactory evidence pursuant to Section 1185 of the Civil Code, the journal shall contain the signature of the credible witness swearing or affirming to the identity of the individual or the type of identifying document, the governmental agency issuing the document, the serial or identifying number of the document, and the date of issue or expiration of the document."

It even refers back to Civil Code 1185. Also, the jurat certificate for CA says "proved to me on the basis of SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your reply, but just want to make sure someone doesn't think that we don't need the same level of identification for jurats as we do for acknowledgements.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/26/13 1:23am
Msg #481907

Re: There' is no rule like that...

No, I think maybe you did misinterpret that. The Satisfactory Evidence Rule applies to all notarizations. That is in regards to ID of the person in front you and certifying their ID vs the signature they acknowledge or affirm. It has nothing to do with the content of the document itself, and that includes pre-printed names.

The comment about knowing if the person in front of you is the person "described" in the document only relates to acknowledgements, as far as the written laws are. That makes sense, actually... because with a jurat, the individual may simply be swearing to the contents of the document... they aren't claiming to be singing anything in an authorized capacity. They are two very distinct types of acts. Most people don't really see or understand that difference, but there is a difference.

BUT... even with acknowledgments, you have to allow some leeway in this. Take, for example a document signed by an individual claiming to hold the POA for the individual "described" in the document. Under CA law, we are not allowed to determine or certify that person's capacity to sign the document. If they claim they have the capacity to sign, and they present valid ID... then that's all we, as notaries, can do. If you read the wording of the acknowledgment, it very clearly put the responsibility of that on the signer, not the notary. We are only there to certify the signature of the person in front of us... the one claiming the capacity.

Remember that a notarization has zero impact on the legality of a document. If an individual does not the have the "legal right" to sign something, a notarization on that signature won't change that.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/26/13 1:46am
Msg #481909

Re: There' is no rule like that...

"It even refers back to Civil Code 1185. Also, the jurat certificate for CA says "proved to me on the basis of SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE to be the person(s) who appeared before me."

I agree, Jeff. Thanks for saving me the effort of commenting on that, which I was about to do. This whole topic gives me a headache anymore. The phrase "reasonable person", used when describing satisfactory evidence, implies to me that a certain amount of - forgive me - "common sense" needs to be applied when deciding these issues.

The fact of the matter is that the topic of people's names and what they have on their IDs is often anything but simple. We don't live in a perfect world and there are few guarantees - and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that everyone will conform to straightforward, absolute rules about this stuff in order to make our work easier. Nor do I think they should be SOL when it comes to getting a document notarized, as a result. [Please don't read too much into that sentence!]

Do we need to be careful about ID? Absolutely! Do we need to expect perfection? I don't think so. We just need to ensure that the form of ID presented to us is allowed by our state law and that it proves with a reasonable certainty that the person before us is one and the same as the person "described in the document". Within those constraints, each one of us has to decide for ourselves how to record that in our certificates and in our journals, in any given situation.

I suspect that lots of these so-called rules exist because this is a complicated topic to teach - and you can't teach common sense. (Also, I wonder how many people actually read the legal codes themselves to decide how to approach the subject...) So the folks who teach notaries have come up with rules to try to make it easier for people to make these judgments and to give them some guidelines. And some of the people who take those classes consider those guidelines as gospel, instead of going back to study the law and make their own determinations.

Further, a very few - who just happen to be from California - express their very firm convictions on the subject and some then take that as fact rather than opinion. Next thing you know, people are commenting about all those California laws - which don't even exist!

This is already way more than I intended to say on this subject, so I'm done!

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/26/13 10:36am
Msg #481940

Marian - Gerard raises same question I have ...

With regard to your practice of using the name as presented on the ID w/in your cert, rather than the name contained/signed as in the document - I can't make sense of this, either.

If you have made the decision to notarize a person, it would follow that you have satisfactory evidence that they ARE the person named in the document and signing the document. To alter the name of that person in your cert to a variant you prefer seems to me to negate your own decision that you ARE satisfied that they are the same person as presented in/on the document. If you are NOT satisfied, then you would not notarize - correct? You either ARE satisfied, or you are NOT, and I just don't follow the logic of 'having your cake and eating it too'. I also never understood that phrase ... but we'll work with it. =)

Using your procedure - you could apply it to ANY situation where a person hands you ID and a document containing ANY name, and you simply insert the name as shown on the ID. How would you differentiate between a variant on the doc that makes sense to you, or one that is completely different?

If you say you are only satisfied if the ID and the prepared name are at least reasonably the same - why attempt to step away from that decision by essentially saying "I'm not certain they are the person named on this document, but I am certain that they are the person named on their ID."

*It should be noted that some state's recorders (such as mine) will not record a document where there is any discrepancy between the name in the document, the name prepared on the signature line and the name in the cert. CA does not seem to require this, apparently.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/26/13 11:27am
Msg #481958

Re: Marian - Gerard raises same question I have ...

It's also interesting that the standard CA acknowledgement certificate always contains the possibility that the signer might be acting for another, and it is up to the signer to claim that he/she is acting for another; the notary has no role in determining whether the signer is actually authorized to act for another.

Normally documents have wording in the body, or under the signature line, or in the signature (or all of these) where the role of the signer is clarified, something like "John Doe by Jack Smith, his attorney-in-fact". But it isn't up to the CA notary to look for such wording and refuse to act unless such wording is present. So that really puts the onus on the recipient to have documentation on hand showing that Jack Smith really is authorized to act for John Doe.

This would certainly be confusing to a third party who has an interest in the transaction, such as someone buying the home a decade after the signature; there is no way for the third party to tell whether Jack Smith was an attorney-in-fact, or a new name for John Doe.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/26/13 3:10pm
Msg #481990

Re: Marian - Gerard raises same question I have ...

I assume you're referring to the representative capacity phrase? I interpret that very differently, perhaps even oppositely. I believe that the phrase is essentially a catch-all, saying that the person is signing in whatever unspecified capacity the person might represent themselves to have (separate from the notarization) relative to the document in question, e.g. trustee of a trust, CEO of a corporation, owner of a car, parent of a child, etc. In fact, our notary law prohibits us from specifying a capacity in our certificates, so there is no need for a notary to see proof of whatever representative capacity a person might be acting in. It's just not part of the process for us.

So I don't believe it's meant to refer to one person signing for another one. IOW, we do not certify the capacity, just that the person provided satisfactory evidence, personally appeared and acknowledged signing. Whether or not that person is authorized to sign in whatever capacity it might be (including as AIF), is between the document recipient and the signer.


"...there is no way for the third party to tell whether Jack Smith was an attorney-in-fact, or a new name for John Doe."

On the contrary, that should be perfectly clear. I would expect that if a POA was used, the document signature would be something like this: "John Doe by Jack Smith, his AIF" OR "Jack Smith, as AIF for John Doe".

Maybe that's your point, but it's why I believe that we do need to make sure the person who's signature we notarize is the same as the person named in the document. I think it would be irresponsible to notarize Jack Smith's signature (with no other notation by it) on a document naming John Doe as the signer, just because he claims he has the right to sign for him, even if he does have a POA. If he represents that as the case, and if it has been OKd by the document recipient, then the signature line should reflect that.

Again, just common sense. Nothing in the law that will go into such excruciating detail.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/25/13 8:05pm
Msg #481880

I agree with GoldGirl

The receiving entity *expects* that the person who signed the doc is the same person named in the doc. They don't *expect* the doc to say Mary A. Jones and the signature and notarial cert be that of Evelyn R. Thomas. Realistically speaking, the receiving entity decides the signer's capacity to sign - NOT the signer....it's their doc - they call the shots. If the doc is not notarized to their satisfaction - they have the power to reject the doc and the signer will not get whatever it is they signed for. Receiving entity holds the power of that doc - not the signer.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/26/13 1:31am
Msg #481908

Re: I agree with GoldGirl

that's true to a point... it's the signer who claims capacity. If they're lying, it's not the receiving entity's legal obligation.... but the signer's.

All that said, though... it still doesn't matter to the notary. If the document doesn't "look" the way they want it... they can't blame the notary. They need to prepare the document the way they want it... but they have ZERO control of the form and content of the notarial certificate.

I have one company up in arms recently that they received a document with my round purple seal rather than the generic black rectangle they're used to seeing from everyone. They called me and said I needed to do it again, on my dime because what I did was illegal and purple ink was "unprofessional" -- well, I set them straight on that, and the Sec of State's office backed me up.\

The notarial certificate is MY space, not theirs. When I certify that a person personally appeared before me, I write down the name of that person per the valid ID they gave me. That's all I have to go by. If it doesn't match the document to the document receiver's expectations, that's not MY problem.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/26/13 8:22am
Msg #481918

Re: I agree with GoldGirl

I agree - the notarial cert is ours exclusively...but the doc belongs to the receiving entity and they *expect* the person who signs it is the person named in the doc. Otherwise, there's no point to witnessing a signature if the person you ID is not named in the doc. JMHO