Posted by MrEd_Ca on 8/26/13 10:57am
Msg #481950

My Identification Nightmare ----

Although this is similar to some of the discussion in reply to yesterday’s message # 481819, I would like to get everyone’s take on this situation, sort of a ‘what would you have done’.

A little over a year ago, I was hired for GNW signing of a one page document titled ‘2nd Amendment to the Revocable Trust of Juan Gomez’. This happened at a local rehab facility, the signer had Parkinson’s but otherwise was with it and aware of the document & all of that. His sister & daughter were present. His valid ID had his name as ‘John Gomez”, while the notary acknowledgement had the name of the person who appeared before me as ‘Juan Gomez, a.k.a. John Gomez’.

Right away I told them that 1) I could not use the existing notary acknowledgment as it was written – that only a persons name could go in that block, & 2) I could not acknowledge the name ‘Juan’ at all, since his driver license had ‘John’, & not ‘Juan’. And 3) the only signature wording I could notarize would be that of ‘John’, & I would have to use a Loose Certificate that would be attached to the document.

All 3 were anxious to get the document signed & the signature notarized, and agreed to the attached certificate in the name ‘John’. I did explain to all why I could not notarize the name ‘Juan’ nor use the existing certificate wording (the ‘Juan a.k.a. John”) & I urged them to make sure this was ok with the author (who I assumed was an attorney) and with the entity that was to, eventually, receive it. My policy is if either party has a problem then I will redo the job (for free) as long as the alternative that is proposed is legal & permitted by the Notary handbook & what the Ca. SOS has told me. This is standard operating procedure for me, when confronted with notarization requests that are not straightforward.

So, fast forward to last night when I recieve an email just before going to bed stating that the signer had died recently & that the bank would not accept the document that was notarized that day. Needless to say, I did not get much sleep. The email did not say why the bank refused.

My questions are; should this have been done differently & any advice as to what do they do now to get the bank to accept the document? Thanks to all who reply

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/26/13 11:09am
Msg #481953

Don't know how you could have done it differently

and still tay within your notary laws.

As for what they do now? Probate Court or a good estate attorney. The legal rep for the estate has to pick up the ball now - not you.

Good Luck and don't stress it.....IMO it's out of your hands and has been for a year.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/26/13 11:10am
Msg #481954

sorry...typo - still "stay". n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 8/26/13 2:12pm
Msg #481981

I agree with Linda. We have no info as to whether the

document prepared will stand up upon the death of the individual. I had a situation with a will, prepared by the son-in-law, a CA attorney supposedly. It was done in a hurry because it was an 11th hr. situation. He didn't draw it up to have witness signatures notarized, so Probate Court rulled the Will invalid. It was a shame, because they needed to access funds to care for a woman in a nursing facility.
We can't give legal advice, but IMO it's always a good idea to let them know that just because we notarize something that doesn't necessarily make the document legal.
Many people are pulling documents from online resources these days.

Reply by JeffC/CA on 8/26/13 11:55am
Msg #481960

The only thing I can think of is you could have had the signer sign John Gomez a.k.a. Juan Gomez on the doc, and then attach certificate just as you did, with John Gomez appearing before you, etc.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 8/26/13 12:01pm
Msg #481961

I'm assuming the family was using your notarized doc to get access to his $$..? So, I'm suggesting that the bank rejected their request because the bank felt it couldn't rely on the document itself or it was not the proper instrument the bank needed in order to turn over $$. For example: There are some banks that will not accept a POA unless it's on *their* form.

Docs and notarizations can be/and are phony-ed up all the time, or phony ID can be used to get a notarization. Just because someone walks in off the street with a doc that could clean out grandpa's savings, doesn't mean the bank is going to play ball. They may not have "liked" the loose cert either. Some receiving agencies flip if the notarization isn't on the doc itself.

However, I suspect this has nothing to do with you. Your notarization followed the law. The family needs legal counsel - like whoever drew up the trust to begin with. And BTW: What good is it to send you an e-mail saying the bank rejected the doc and not say why? Yikes. Oh, and to answer your question if you could have done it differently, well, you could have crossed out "Juan Gomez, aka" on the doc, leaving only "John Gomez," but I don't know what difference that would have made.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/26/13 12:10pm
Msg #481963

There's one statement MrEd_Ca made that I'm not so sure about: "Right away I told them that 1) I could not use the existing notary acknowledgment as it was written – that only a persons name could go in that block." But "Juan Gomez, a.k.a. John Gomez" are just names. People are allowed to use more than one name at the same time. If he could have produced ID or credible witness(es) for both names, it might have been OK.

One hears phrases like "true legal name" thrown about, although it isn't clear there is such a thing or exactly what it means. But even if such a thing exists, people can still use an alias if there is no intent to deceive.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 8/26/13 2:16pm
Msg #481983

Hey, VT Syrup

I believe AKA is a "capacity," which is not allowed in CA. Also, I'm not using credible witnesses because the signer and/or the receiving agency can't get their act together regarding names. (But that's just me. Not my "responsibility." Too risky. ) And I agree, what's a "legal name"?

P.S. I was amazed by your erudite post yesterday about IDs. It got me thinking a lot! You took the issue to a new, challenging level that taxed my little brain for sure.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/26/13 7:08pm
Msg #482012

Re: Hey, VT Syrup

My view about capacity is there have to be two different legal entities for there to be a capacity. A. B., who is the attorney-in-fact of C. D., or E. F., who is the president of G Inc. Or Gerard Ashton, the disaster responder of the Red Cross, and so forth. If all the names in the certificate refer to the same legal entity* there is no capacity.

*By necessity, when there is only one legal entity named in a non-CA acknowledgement certificate, it has to be a natural person, which is one kind of legal entity. After all, a corporation has no hand to sign with and no voice to speak with, so has to have a natural person acknowledge for it.

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/26/13 12:43pm
Msg #481969

Re: My Identification Nightmare ----here's my take

Definitely more information is needed. Why? Because "" signing of a one page document titled ‘2nd Amendment to the Revocable Trust of Juan Gomez’. " IS NOT the complete name of the trust, there is a date involved also in naming a trust (usually).

2. The name " Revocable Trust of Juan Gomez’ " is NOT " Revocable Trust of John Gomez’ " OR " Revocable Trust of Juan Gomez’ aka John Gomez ". The person preparing that amendment should have know that!

Lastly, without knowing who those family members were or the listed "Settlors" it doesn't mean anything.

I wouldn't have done it with just the info you provided. Hopefully there is more and you just omitted it, just cause. LOL

Reply by sueharke on 8/26/13 1:47pm
Msg #481977

Re: My Identification Nightmare ----here's my take

I had a recent GNW for a General POA. The signer had a UPS store do the notarization. The wording on the form was not CA wording and the UPS notary did not correct it or attach a loose attachment. The bank rejected the form on two grounds

1. Notarization was not CA wording
2. It was not on their own form.

The family created new forms with the correct wording and had the banks specific forms notorized at the same time.

Therefore, I agree with an earlier poster who brought up these two points as possible causes to the rejection by the bank.

Reply by Letty Marquez on 8/26/13 4:31pm
Msg #482003

You did what the law told you to do, you shouldn't feel bad for their mistake plus you explained to them why you couldn't notarized in the other name.

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/26/13 7:07pm
Msg #482011

have you noticed how posters come here and post offer

no explanation, don't respond AND are anonymous....you Mr ED, ...NO COMMENT!

Reply by MrEd_Ca on 8/27/13 11:23am
Msg #482107

Holy smokes, Mr Notarysigner ---

--- I posted my post less than 24 hours ago. Is there some sort of NR forum rule that dictates how much time elapses before one is required to respond? Should I respond after or before each new response, or my next job? Or during? & what if a response is not needed? Dude, get a grip.

I have not responded to any of the posts mostly because I wanted to leave enough time to give as many people who wanted to a chance to respond. I realize a lot of us are ‘out of the office’ much of the time, as I have been, doing other work, some of it important & much of it time consuming. Sometimes I am unable to get the time during the day to see what the latest posts are on NR, sometimes I can hang out here all day. I am sure most of us fall somewhere in between.

& I really felt it was pointless for me to respond rapidly, or to each post. I wanted to get as much information from as many of the experienced notary’s on this site as possible. This issue is an on-going one for me, & will be for a while, I suspect. And I think issues of this sort are of interest to a lot of folks here on NR. & I typically do not post unless I have something that is important to say & have the time to work it out in writing, which is not my strong suit. Also, the spell-check part of my E-machine takes a while to course through the verbiage.

I do thank all who have posted so far & encourage any who might have opinions or experience in similar matters to do so ---- I revisit these sorts of posts over several days. Just because it is yesterdays news does not mean it is not relevant or important to me.

In response to your comments, the title of the trust did include a date. The title I posted was abbreviated because the original was about 5 lines long. & the name of the signer in the post is not the real name. As for the rest of your post, I do not know what to say --- the people present were definitely family members but does that matter?, I did not read the document but only scanned it for completeness & for the signature line. The ‘settlors ? I don’t know, that is not information I am required to know or to record. And, I am not an attorney & do not know if the Amendment was ‘legal’ or not. I do know that it was a legitimate request for notary service & I did my level best to comply while still remaining within the boundaries of California notary rules. I did receive another email from the family members, who are now going to go to the bank to find out why the document was rejected. I am beginning to suspect that they wrote the Amendment themselves. And I am wondering if something as simple as providing a death certificate to the bank would be sufficient. I will update as the situation evolves.

So, what more can I say that won’t bore a lot of people to death or take up unnecessary space on this site? Oh, as to my anonymous-ness, I ‘m not that hard to find - one can always send me a PM & Harry & the NSA know where I am. And ‘Dude, get a grip’ is the mantra I say to myself every morning when I first look in the mirror. I like to think it helps me cope.

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/27/13 2:03pm
Msg #482170

Re: Holy smokes, Mr Notarysigner --- It was an observation

Which I am entitled to make X'cuse me. The details you provided were not enough to provide an answer that could help you IMO. I do these almost everyday so felt "qualified" to answer and answered because I thought it was URGENT!