Posted by NewPhoenix on 12/2/13 1:41pm
Msg #494683
How far do we take this?
Just how far do we go in having the ID match the signature as requested on the documents? I received a set of documents with the borrowers name as "Matt". I called the borrower to confirm everything and asked about his name on his driver's license and he said it was "Matthew". I inquired a little further and he told the the last time the documents were drawn up the Title company asked him what name he wanted to go by (note: not what was on his ID) and he told them Matt so they wrote everything up that way. He also told me he was married but there were no spousal docs. So with these two issues I thought I'd call; and get them corrected. Most Title companies I have dealt with will just add a QC Deed from Matt to Matthew, redraw the docs with Matthew and no problem.
I called the signing service and he said no problem just have him sign as Matt, there is a Name document in there somewhere. I said I can't do that because the only ID he has to show me says Matthew. He actually said "Well, all the other Notaries will do that, Title and even the NNA says that's ok!". Yes he actually said that. So he gives me the number for the guy at Title.
Same conversation, it's ok to do that and I tell him as a commissioned Notary I can't do that without a matching ID for his signature since I don't know him personally. Now he gets all upset and says he knows I have to follow the rule and that I am right but that it makes him so frustrated. He says the signing is canceled for today and practically hangs up on me.
Minutes later I get an email that the signing is REVOKED. Not canceled, not rescheduled, revoked. So not only have I lost the signing, I have lost the signing service and yet another Title company (not due to not having a specific backround check company this time).
So was I being too particular? Should we as Notaries accept shortened names or nicknames? What about Middle Initials or lack thereof? And if NNA says it's ok to do something we should do it?
Comments?
| Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/2/13 1:55pm
Msg #494687
You did the right thing! I know it's frustrating.
| Reply by Buddy Young on 12/2/13 1:57pm
Msg #494688
In California ID requirements are pretty specific. However it does also say " the absence of information that would lead you to believe the person in front of you is not the person named in the documents." In this case there is no such evidence.
I would have done the notarization but my notarial certificates would have listed the name on the ID, not Matt.
Then they can worry about it.
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/2/13 2:26pm
Msg #494697
I have found a quasi-governmental organization that has provided advice about how a notary should use ID documents to decide if the right person was before the notary. The organization is the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Each state sends a representative, and the Conference comes up with laws they SUGGEST the several states adopt, but none of these suggested acts is a law unless a particular state decides to pass it. They have a Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (RULONA for short) which contains both the suggested law, and comments on what it means and why it was written the way it was. It has been passed in IA, ND, OR, and PA. It may be found at
http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Law%20on%20Notarial%20Acts,%20Revised
It contains this note about using some flexibility when deciding if the name on the document is close enough to the name on the ID:
"Identification of an individual based on an identification credential requires some flexibility. For example, it is not uncommon that an individual’s name as used in a record may be a full name, including a full middle name; however, the name of the individual as provided on the identification credential may only use a middle initial or none at all. The inconsistency may be vice versa instead. The notarial officer should recognize these common inconsistencies when performing the identification of an individual. However, if a notarial officer is ultimately uncertain about the identity of the individual, the notarial officer should refuse to perform the notarial act (see Section 8.)"
One of the commenters in this thread suggested writing the name on the ID on the certificate, even though it isn't identical to the name in the document. I wouldn't do that, because I feel I am in a better position to determine if Matt and Matthew are the same person than some title searcher 30 years from now. Therefore, either I have to be convinced Matt and Matthew are the same person, or I'm not performing a notarial act.
RULONA also addresses this to some degree:
"A notarial officer who takes an acknowledgment of a record shall determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual, that the individual appearing before the officer and making the acknowledgment has the identity claimed and that the signature on the record is the signature of the individual." (There is similar language for oaths and affirmations.)
So the notary is not merely saying that Matthew appeared and proved the identity Matthew; the notary must also be reasonably certain that he has the identity claimed, that is, Matt.
| Reply by Stoli on 12/2/13 3:04pm
Msg #494704
This thread contradicts the recently posted video by the NNA
This entire thread contradicts the recently posted NNA video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4XQwC1Krro
Fast forward through the first video and watch the second video on identification of the signer
| Reply by CH2inCA on 12/2/13 3:26pm
Msg #494707
I've asked CA SOS specifically about this
This was their response:
"Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1185(3) which states in part… "Reasonable reliance of the presentation to the officer..." For example, it is normally reasonable to believe that if "Sam" is on the document, and is short for Samuel, which is on the identification, however if the id shows just Sam, the document could show S., Samuel, Samantha, etc. You need to have reasonable reliance that the person appearing before you is the same person who signed the document. Other elements on the identification such as photo, description, address, and signature can also be used to determine reasonable reliance."
By the way, I was "FIRED" (yes, she yelled at me over the phone) by the loan officer on this job. :0)
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/2/13 3:47pm
Msg #494711
IAPOSTROPHEve asked CA SOS specifically about this
The response, as typed by CH2inCA, seems to say that flexibility could be applied in either direction. That is, it would be OK to notarize a document that says "Sam" with the ID Samuel, and also OK to notarize a document that says Samuel if the ID says Sam. But in the phrase "which is on the identification, however if the id shows just Sam" the word "however" seems out of place.
The odd word "however" makes me wonder whether CH2inCA copied the information correctly. Or perhaps the SOS employee didn't write what he/she really meant to write. In my mind it is of limited value to quote emails from government employees to individual notaries for many reasons:
Maybe it wasn't copied correctly.
Maybe the email does not correctly describe the official policy of the government organization.
Maybe the information was taken out of context, and if the full series of email exchanges were available, it would cast a different light on the situation.
Regrettably, the FAQs posted by some of the secretaries of state seldom get below the level of explaining that notarizations by phone are a no-no.
| Reply by MAC/WA on 12/3/13 12:03pm
Msg #494821
Re: IAPOSTROPHEve asked CA SOS specifically about this
I think I read somewhere (think in one of the NNA manuals, sorry for mentioning them) that a person can sign less but not more than what is on ID:
First name: Samuel--can sign Sam
Middle name: Thomas--can sign T.
I tend not to stress it too much, if the pic matches the face, and the address and dob match the docs, I will proceed with signing; tho I DO look at the ID name.
I certainly don't stress for GNW.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/3/13 5:44pm
Msg #494857
Re: IAPOSTROPHEve asked CA SOS specifically about this
The NNA can make recommendations about this, but as a private business, they have absolutely no authority to say what is or is not permissible. That's a determination each notary has to make with every notarization, in accordance with their own state laws.
| Reply by MAC/WA on 12/4/13 9:44pm
Msg #495062
Need to state the obvious???? n/m
| Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/2/13 3:44pm
Msg #494709
I would've done the closing...
The question you should've asked yourself at that time was:
Is it reasonable to assume that the person in front of you calling himself Matt, and his picture ID showing Matthew, is in fact the same individual? This is why we ask for picture IDs.
I would've went ahead with the closing, and have him sign as Matthew in my notary journal, according to his picture gov't issued ID, and then had him sign as requested as Matt on the loan docs, as he requested.
I also would've made sure his Name Affidavit (which btw, he may have been swearing to on oath, in some circumstances) reflected that he acknowledges or swears on oath that he is both Matt XXXX and Matthew XXXX.
Were you being a weee bit too precautious, perhaps.
No judgment here, but perhaps you could've stopped and looked at this situation from another perspective.
| Reply by Saul Leibowitz on 12/2/13 3:45pm
Msg #494710
same as Carrie, but
knowing he was married I would have insisted on appropriate spousal documents.
| Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/2/13 4:02pm
Msg #494714
I wouldn't have gone that far Saul. The picture ID could
have been sufficient....
| Reply by MonicaFL on 12/2/13 5:35pm
Msg #494726
Re: I would
no matter how the documents are typed up, I have my journal signed according to his/her driver's license. i.e., Mary Jane Doe and docs show Mary Doe or Mary J. Doe. If she looks like Mary Jane Doe, and her signature is similar to that on the DL, and the address is the same, I would go ahead with the closing. I would make sure that the AKA name Affidavit shows the variances in her name and have her sign each one of the variances.
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/2/13 5:55pm
Msg #494728
Re: I would
Checking the photo and the signature in the journal vs. the signature on the license only tells you so much. It tells you that the person in front of you is most likely the person named in the license. Being careful with this check will help prevent the scenario where John Doe "borrows" his wife's driver's license and has his girlfriend sign for the wife while presenting the wife's ID.
It doesn't help if the Jane Doe in the license really is named Jane Doe, but the owner of the house is a different Jane Doe. If the imposter's name is identical to the name on the docs, she's about the same age, and she has physical access to the house, there's nothing the notary can do without becoming a private investigator. But cases where a person with a similar name to the true owner carrying out fraud are pretty unusual, and cases where a name variation would clue you in would be even more unusual. Refusing to accept the slights name variation would create many cases where rightful owners are effectively deprived of their property, and very rarely (if ever) prevent fraud. So you have to figure out what "reasonable" means.
| Reply by NewPhoenix on 12/2/13 4:51pm
Msg #494719
How far do we take this?
I guess I should have mentioned that I am in Ohio, rather than California but I am interested in a "universal" consensus. I'll have to check out that video if I am able to get access to it, but it is probably oriented to California. I'll have to check with the Ohio SOS.
I look at it as: just because there is a Name Affidavit in the package, that doesn't cover the Mortgage being recorded (without the Name Affidavit) in the local records with the "wrong" name/signature. If there is a challenge at some future date it was ME that accepted a non matching ID.
I can see myself in court 15 years being asked to defend why I allowed him to sign as Matt and Notarized that signature when his name/ID actually said Matthew.
Any other comments?
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/2/13 5:45pm
Msg #494727
In my state notaries are expected to carry out their duties with reasonable care. My idea of what a reasonable notary would do with respect to names:
1. Be fluent in English and familiar with Anglo-Irish naming traditions. English is the native language of the majority of Americans, and the dominant language in American commerce and law. American law uses the English common law as a point of departure (except Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and perhaps a few territories and Indian tribes).
2. Recognize common-sense ordinary name variations between what may appear on an identity credential and a document:
2a. One might have ALL UPPER CASE and the other might have mixed case.
2b. One might list the family name first, the other might might list the Christian name first.
2c. One might reduce the middle name to an initial, or drop it.
2d. Suffixes might not agree.
2e. Widely used nicknames might appear on one but not the other.
2f. The notary may be aware of peculiar policies of their DMV, such as a propensity to use the maiden surname as the middle name for married women, or giving the weight as one digit (the Vermont DMV does the weight weirdness on recent licenses).
3. Use great caution, or decline to notarize, with names from naming traditions that the notary is not familiar with.
4. Use great caution, or decline to notarize, with unusual nicknames.
| Reply by Lee/AR on 12/2/13 5:18pm
Msg #494723
There is NO universal answer; only what YOUR state accepts. n/m
| Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/2/13 6:07pm
Msg #494729
NewPhoenix, the ONLY answer that is reasonable for you to
accept is what your state's SOS says. Call them up and explain to them the scenario you described in your original post. Then see what they say. Let us know if you do this.
No one can guarantee that the person in front of them, showing proper ID is in fact that person, but with its our job to identify that person, with reasonable certainty and in accordance to our own state notarial laws, that the person in front of the notary is in fact the person on the ID.
I don't think this is that serious of a situation that will land you in court, but cya should always be the notaries goal when it comes to iffy situations like yours. You did what you thought was best for you.
Its done and over with and on to the next one.
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/2/13 6:25pm
Msg #494735
Re: NewPhoenix, the ONLY answer that is reasonable for you to
I don't agree that, universally, the only identification duty of the notary is to insure that " the person in front of the notary is in fact the person on the ID." The real issue is whether the person in front of the notary has the right to use the identity stated within the document. It is universally understood that if the notary is presented with ID that is approved in the state notary law, or if the law is silent, that is widely considered reliable, AND the name in the ID exactly matches the name in the document, AND the notary has not stumbled upon any evidence to the contrary (like the property was bought in 1970 but the signer was born in 1990) then the notary has reasonable certainty that the signer has the identity stated in the document.
There is no blow-by-blow law or rule saying exactly how much variation can exist between the name in the ID and the name in the document before there is no longer reasonable certainty. The notary has to decide, in accordance with what a reasonable person would do.
It would be wrong for a notary (with the possible exception of California) to refuse to notarize if the notary KNOWS FOR CERTAIN that a person has a right to use the name given in a document, merely because the name on the ID is different. Of course, an notary with that kind of knowledge wouldn't even have to see the ID (except in California, or it is a lender/title requirement).
| Reply by PJM_RI on 12/2/13 6:14pm
Msg #494731
This happened to me in October with documents having both Greg and Gregory on various pages. I had him sign the way it appeared on each document. If no one at title is checking these name variations and letting them appear both ways on the docs when they send them out then I'm not about to do their job. Three days later I got a call to go out for a Quit Claim Deed and a few pages to correct their error. Got paid for both trips.
| Reply by Luckydog on 12/2/13 6:21pm
Msg #494733
You did the right thing...His legal name is Matthew, and the lender and or title company screwed up. It's not their choice how they want their legal documents recorded, it is supposed to be their legal identity. Nicknames do not count in this day and age. Also another issue is people who decide to be a "Jr." or "Sr" just because... If none of the documents said his legal name as Matthew, I would not do the closing. If Matt and Matthew were scattered throughout and the package containing an AKA, I probably would have continued on, and also tried to insist on something that just had his name Matt on it with his DL. It seems they were too lazy to make the change for you. It sucks when closings are more few than plenty right now.
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/2/13 6:41pm
Msg #494738
"It's not their choice how they want their legal documents recorded, it is supposed to be their legal identity." Sorry, I don't agree. If there is no purpose of deception, people are free to transact their affairs under names other than what appear on their birth certificates. (And using a nickname might not even count as using a alias.) Just try and figure out what a "legal name" is. While you might find a definition that applies to one particular section of law in one state, I defy you to find a definition that applies for general purposes to the whole country.
My personal experience with this is applying for a patent. The lead inventor knew me by my nickname, Gerry, so that's what went on the application. By the time the application was sent to me to sign, deadlines were approaching and there was no time to redraft the application with the name on my birth certificate. The intellectual property attorney at IBM assured me that there was no problem, the nickname would do just fine.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/2/13 8:53pm
Msg #494751
I tend to agree with you. I doubt I would have given this much thought. Matt is just a shortened version of Matthew - as most of us should know, so I wouldn't have hesitated to notarize. I think we can get carried away with this issue. Like VT Syrup said, the point is for us to achieve a level of satisfaction that this person before us is actually the person named in the documents with the authority to sign them.
I believe a good dose of common sense is required because this is often not very clear cut. Most people in their every day dealings don't think about how they use their names the same way we do. When they make decisions about these things, it's typically for reasons that have nothing to do with the probability that someday they may have to appear before a notary!
BTW, as far as California law is concerned (except for the fact that we can no longer use personal knowledge) the only way this issue is addressed is as someone stated above, referencing the lack of any information to the contrary that this person is not the one named in the documents. I believe there's been lots of misinformation posted here based on what people were told in a class. Most of that is the result of the opinion of the instructors (or their training materials) not anything that is actually written into CA law.
| Reply by LKT/CA on 12/2/13 10:05pm
Msg #494757
The bottom line, NewPhoenix, is this...
If YOU don't feel at peace notarizing in a given situation, then DON'T. Only you will answer for your notarial actions. Doesn't matter what others would have done. There are CA notary laws that allow notaries to notarize for family and even spouses. I flat out REFUSE....and direct family elsewhere. Some notaries have no issue with it. I don't feel at all comfortable with it and won't do it.
If you don't feel comfortable - don't notarize.
| Reply by notarydi/CA on 12/2/13 10:53pm
Msg #494761
agree totally with Janet.... n/m
| Reply by NewPhoenix on 12/3/13 12:04am
Msg #494767
Thanks and I am surpised no one commented on...
... the signing service remark "... and the NNA says it is ok...". He really did say that!
Other than that thanks for everyone comments!
| Reply by jba/fl on 12/3/13 8:58am
Msg #494790
Re: Thanks and I am surpised no one commented on...
... the signing service remark "... and the NNA says it is ok...".
That was your cue to come back with your knowledge of OH law vs. CA law, and that what "they say" is not always correct, even in CA, and that the NNA will not be defending your decision in court should it come to that.
|
|
