Posted by emilysigns on 1/6/13 9:25am
Msg #449144

The name game

I am so sad. Last night I had an appointment for multiple properties, same BO's. Love those. The people were the two nicest folks. Under different circumstances, I would love to share a glass of wine and talk with them all night.

We get down to it and Mrs. holds title with a hyphenated married name, but never legally took her husband's name, so obviously, she has no ID for the hyphenated version. She explained her logic, and I can see what she was thinking (although I think she created the very scenario she was hoping to avoid)

Rate lock is expiring. They were desparate to sign. They just couldn't understand why she couldn't sign that way. They took title that way and had refi'd three times with no one else ever questioning it.

I felt so bad....it was a tough one. Who are these notaries that just accept absolutely anything?? I honestly feel like the jerk here. I do.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/6/13 9:33am
Msg #449145

I am so glad Florida addresses this situation...

no issue here and we could have done it.

Could she not sign as typed but you notarize with name in cert of who is in front of you with ID? Providing you're satisfied she is that person?

Such a shame.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 11:17am
Msg #449163

I believe that it could have been done, too.

This issue is repeating itself so often on this forum, that I wonder if lenders can afford to keep hiring notary signing agents. I am not trying to be rude, I just know the entire transaction is not created to suit a notary's policy of "matching" names.

At the least, the lender/hiring entity should have been given the option of the notary using the ID name to complete a certificate.


If it is the right person, it should be signed if valid ID is provided.

If it is not the right person, I feel that a crime should be reported.

This has nothing to do with Texas law vs. California law. They actually read quite similarly.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 11:18am
Msg #449164

And, for the UPL police, Msg. above is my opinion. n/m

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 11:29am
Msg #449166

Re: I believe that it could have been done, too.

Hi Brenda,

You're allowed to have an opinion. I do not believe that a name has to match ID exactly, but adding on an additional last name that is admittedly NOT her legal name in any way, shape, or form? Nope.

She has the legal right to acquire that identity. Not to assume that identity as it pleases her without going through the process of changing her name.

Why would such a process exist if not necessary?

Her kids have mom's name. Could the kids decided one day to start using dad's last name without legally changing it? would you accept that too?

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 11:46am
Msg #449172

As I said, at the least, the hiring entity should have

been consulted to see if it would be acceptable to the lender for the presiding notary to use the exact name on the ID on the notary certificate. It meets the notary's requirements, it likely meets the recording office's requirements, and the transaction could go forward.

If the hiring entity refused that option, that would be their choice.

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 11:50am
Msg #449174

Re: As I said, at the least, the hiring entity should have

Well, unfortunately they were not available on a Saturday night.

However, I know the EO personally and I am certain she will agree that there will need to be a redraw to add the AKA.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 12:14pm
Msg #449184

Re: As I said, at the least, the hiring entity should have

If I could not have found my way to sign in the name on the documents, I would have put the name on the ID, put in a voice mail to the hiring entity, and let them sort it out.

An AKA does not resolve the problem that is presented, in my opinion.

Emily, I am presenting what I believe to be an alternative to stopping what some will see as a perfectly sound signing. Alternative solutions should be explored. Please do not be offended because I see an alternative to this that I think deserves mention.

Also, it is quite unlikely that the ID has not been viewed by the EO and/or the lender. At least, in my years of mortgage, legal, and title work, this would be the case in Texas.

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 12:27pm
Msg #449188

Re: As I said, at the least, the hiring entity should have

Oh no, I am not offended at all. I just don't understand your reasoning to be honest. You state that the transaction is not built around a notary's requirement to match names. This is true, but nor is the notarial law written to accomodate the financial convenience of the lender, borrower, or TC.

I would accept any method of correction that would allow me to acknowledge her with her maiden name. She only has ID for her maiden name therefore I will not personally acknowledge her with her married name. I know CA Recording requirements, and a deed that has been signed by Mary Jones-Smith is not likely to record with an acknowledgment for Mary Jones. This is why the aka statement would be employed, should they desire.

If they would rather go out and find someone else to do it, that's fine. Really. My own interpretation of CA notary law does not allow me to do so. Anyone is welcome to disagree, but in the end, it's my stamp on that document.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 11:49am
Msg #449173

Sorry, I did not answer your other question.

"Her kids have mom's name. Could the kids decided one day to start using dad's last name without legally changing it? would you accept that too?"

I am not sure what this has to do with a notary's participation in a transaction, nor how speculation on this would be helpful to the discussion.

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 11:52am
Msg #449175

Re: Sorry, I did not answer your other question.

It's practically the same scenario.

If the children's last name is Jones, like their mom's. And the dad's name is Smith, if they were signing in front of you would you sign them as Smith because that's their dad's name and they just decided to use it to hold title?

They have the legal right to change their name to mirror their father's last name, but that is not in fact, their legal name.

Same goes for the wife. She can change her name, but currently, that is not her legal name.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 12:06pm
Msg #449181

Red herring. The woman has ID that has her name on it.

A notary may identify a person with valid/acceptable ID.

She has valid ID, she can receive notarization in the name on her ID.

This has nothing to do with legal names, nor children. Nor do notaries really get involved with deciding what names are legal.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 1:15pm
Msg #449196

I think it is black-letter law in every jurisdiction ...

... that a person has a right to use any name he wishes, as long as that is not done for an illegal purpose. A person, in fact, can even use one name in one circumstance and another name in another circumstance; that is done frequently by married women, entertainers, and others. I believe it is also probably the law in every jurisdiction that one may adopt a name and use that name without a legal process being required to settle that name upon the adopter. There is, of course, the difficulty in acquiring any kind of legally recognized identification in the adopted name, but that is another issue. Just because you have adopted a name doesn't mean you have ID in that name, just as it doesn't mean you have a title to a vehicle solely because you bought it.

The fluidity with which the law treats names in one of the reasons that notaries get hung up on the ID question, and the reason that I keep harping on the fact that our role is simply to ascertain, to the best we reasonably can, that the person doing the signing is the one referred to in the documents. The government-issued ID is a means to that end; it is not the be-all and end-all of our legal responsibility.

Wouldn't it be great if, when we get involved in one of these endlessly repetitive questions, we could after posting hit a key and send it to a databank of all previous posts pertaining to that question. Then, when it arose the next time, the first responder could just say "See Databank entry #00000 for further amplification," and we could go on to fresh problems.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 1:37pm
Msg #449201

Yes, it would be great if...

"...when we get involved in one of these endlessly repetitive questions, we could after posting hit a key and send it to a databank of all previous posts pertaining to that question. Then, when it arose the next time, the first responder could just say "See Databank entry #00000 for further amplification," and we could go on to fresh problems."

I usually do try to do a quick search, but usually cannot find the post that I am looking for.

I remember a thread in which someone pulled up a Ca. law that supports your post above, but I could not find it.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/6/13 3:53pm
Msg #449220

Re: Yes, it would be great if...

Could this be what you're looking for? This is from CA Civil Code:

"§ 1185. Acknowledgments; requisites
(a) 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."

Seems to me that this takes it a tad beyond just identifying the person. We also have to identify them as the person who is "described in" the document. It's still a gray area, imo, because most of us would look at the name in the document or typed under the signature line for that description, but as evidenced in this example, that doesn't always correlate clearly. So then we have to make a judgment call and it can get very messy. What are the chances that the Mary Jones before us isn't the same Mary Jones who is married to Mr. Smith? Most likely extremely slim.

However, strange things happen. And with the requirement that all acknowledgments signed by CA notaries are done under penalty of perjury, it makes us want to be that much more cautious - and it's tough to know where to set the bar for "satisfactory". I don't know that I'd be comfortable adding the "Smith" part into my notary certificate if she couldn't show me ANYTHING that had her name as "Jones-Smith". But I would probably proceed with the signing, entering her name as "Mary Jones" into the notary certificates - or possibly offer CWs if I felt certain I was dealing with the right person. Hard to say for sure without being in the actual setting and meeting the people.

Too bad it was a Provident loan. Could put the notary into a no-win situation - but I hope it works out OK in the end!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/6/13 4:12pm
Msg #449222

Re: Yes, it would be great if...

And that's why when I fill out my notarial certificates, I only use the name on the ID presented, as that is the name I'm certifying. We have no idea if the name in the document is really the person in front of us anyway, matching or not.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/6/13 4:16pm
Msg #449223

Re: Yes, it would be great if...

BTW... at least per the CA required wording... it's the SIGNER who is claiming the authority to sign, not the notary. We aren't certifying they are actually one and the same person, that the document is "legal" or anything else -- just the Person So-And-So came to me and claimed to have the authority to sign this document, and did so.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 4:31pm
Msg #449227

Marian, that's a dead-on point to make

I wish I had said that. In fact, I feel confident that I will at some point in the future.

I don't think if someone with ID as Joe Doaks came to you, and wanted to sign a document as Henry Twentwhistle, that would fly. But if he came to you and wanted to sign a document as Joe Dokes, and there was ancillary evidence to satisfactorily establish that they are the same, then hand him a ballpoint.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/6/13 4:58pm
Msg #449233

Re: Marian, that's a dead-on point to make

Yup... and as much as everyone complains about the statutory wording for CA notaries, it exists for a good reason. When we use that wording, we're really protecting ourselves, especially regarding acknowledgments. That's why I will pretty much never use out of state wording, even if some people think it may be allowed given the provisions we have in that regard. I will only use it if I'm told it's required for filing, and that has only happened once. As far as I'm concerned, if the notarization is taking place in CA, they're going to get the wording approved for use in CA.

And when it comes to ID... the name on the ID goes on the certificate, no mater what's written on the document itself. I've always maintained that I do no know, nor do I have the ability, to certify the name of a person written on a document. I can' only certify the signature of the person appearing in front me. I may be perfectly satisfied that they are one and the same person, but that doesn't mean I'm going to match the names up to make some OCD title company happy. I've submitted plenty of deeds where the name on the certificate wasn't an exact match to the name on the document. I've never had one rejected so far that I've been made aware of, and if it's local, do pull them up at the County Clerk's Office or the Hall of Records to verify -- and I've seen plenty recorded, with my seal, that aren't exact matches.

Reply by ananotary on 1/6/13 6:36pm
Msg #449252

Re: Marian, that's a dead-on point to make

"That's why I will pretty much never use out of state wording"

This is one instance where the SOS is VERY CLEAR and without a doubt allows a CA notary to use an out of state acknowledgment (provided capacity, etc. are not involved).

"Some people think it may be allowed given the provisions we have in that regard"

Am I missing something? This part of our handbook IMO does not give any room for interpretation. In this case...it is what it is.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 5:10pm
Msg #449235

True for Texas, too. n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/6/13 9:49pm
Msg #449275

Re: Yes, it would be great if...

<<<And that's why when I fill out my notarial certificates, I only use the name on the ID presented, as that is the name I'm certifying. We have no idea if the name in the document is really the person in front of us anyway, matching or not.>>>

With that logic, anybody can sign a doc with ANY name since it only matters what's on their ID, correct? So, if Marshall Walker shows you his ID with the name Marshall Walker, doesn't matter that the docs say Howard Barnes, right? Doesn't matter what name he signs and the name Marshall Walker is what goes in the certificate because after all, we have no idea if the name on the doc is really that person in front of us anyway, matching or not, is that what your position is? Just want to be clear on your view.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 5:15pm
Msg #449236

Janet - not what I was thinking of.

I will try to find it....it was not related to notary laws. Just an interesting commentary on the topic of legal names.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 1/6/13 5:06pm
Msg #449234

Re: I think it is black-letter law in every jurisdiction ...

According to a UCLA law review article by Julia Shear Kushner, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, and Oklahoma have done away with common law name change. Alabama as of 1874 didn't allow common law name changes but allowed as many additional names as one wishes. (Pages 324–9)

The article may be found at http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/57-1-7.pdf

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 6:19pm
Msg #449249

Six states out of 50? Hmmm...

... That means I was 88 percent correct. Would you pass that on to my ex-wife, please, just to let her know it's possible?

Reply by Edward Cooke on 1/7/13 10:09am
Msg #449299

Re: I think it is black-letter law in every jurisdiction ...

Louisiana does not have "black letter law." It is a civil law state versus a common (black letter) law state, and is the only civil law state in the US unless P.R. becomes a state then there will be two. There would also be, then, be 2 states where notaries can draft documents, etc. that is the now the province of attorneys in all the others.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 1/6/13 9:40am
Msg #449146

You should have checked this out when you confirmed the appointment. Would CA allow you to use CW in this instance since there's no possible way she could get a new license before her rate lock expires? Since the other notaries accepted her ID, there's no way she'd know that she was doing wrong.

Reply by Clem/CA on 1/6/13 9:50am
Msg #449147

Re: The Blame game

It was the LO's fault for not getting a copy of a valid ID at the start of the process.

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 10:01am
Msg #449150

Re: The Blame game

I could have handwritten an AKA statement and had her sign with only her maiden name, but these were Provident. (No corrections allowed).

She has no intention whatsoever to obtain new identification. She does not want to change her name. She simply wishes to hold title to their properties with her married name. (with the thought that if anything ever happened to hubby, there would be no question that she is the wife.) I think she was a bit misguided in this logic.

So, the only solution I can see is a full re-draw to add an aka statment, having her sign as her maiden name, also known as the hyphenated version. They could also draw a GD to reflect the aka and it will record. Hopefully they will go that route.

Hubby suggested they find another notary. I told him that he had that option, and he would likely find someone who was willing to do it, sadly. I can't.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/6/13 10:17am
Msg #449152

Re: The Blame game

<< She simply wishes to hold title to their properties with her married name. (with the thought that if anything ever happened to hubby, there would be no question that she is the wife.) I think she was a bit misguided in this logic. >>

I honestly don't know what property buyers are thinking when they do this stuff. I've had several lately where the middle initial/name on the docs does not match any government issued ID the wife has, it's not on birth certificate, etc. Reason is: it's a "confirmation" name. Oy vey!

I had one a couple of years ago where the wife who was an attorney used her maden name professionally and that was the name listed on all her ID. However, for some reason she had her property titled in what would be her married name if she had ever taken it (I guess it's the same situation that emilysigns was describing). Her explanation: I use the married name as a social name. Again, oy vey!

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 10:31am
Msg #449153

Re: The Blame game

Yeah, I don't know ANYTHING about probate law...but when the day comes, she still won't have ID showing her with the hyphenated name.

None of this mess was necessary. Her name does not establish her relationship, her marriage certificate does.

But HOW is title being established without proper ID? No matter how they did it, there was a GD involved that had to be notarized.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/6/13 10:52am
Msg #449156

Re: The Blame game

Yes but the GD is signed by the SELLERS and the buyers just receive it in the mail after recording. Buyers don't sign the GD. Name on title was selected by the buyers - likely whatever name they put on the purchase contract. That's where it begins to go wrong when someone uses their confirmation name or some fictitious married name.

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 10:55am
Msg #449158

Re: The Blame game

Ahhh. So true. You're right!

Reply by jojo_MN on 1/6/13 11:41am
Msg #449170

Were you able to identify her using both names separately? My belief is that as a notary you need to make sure to the best of your ability that she is indeed the person sitting before you. In these situations, I look at her drivers license to see what her current name is. If she is married, I ask to see her marriage license to see that she is married to the person with the same last name. If I can see her name in both, I wouldn't have any problem notarizing signatures for her. I do the same with chain of names if she is married and her maiden name is on title.

I'm not an attorney and am not sure of the laws for other states; however, it is legal in the states in which I am commissioned. I checked with the SOS a few years ago to be sure.

As far as the documents, just make sure she signs as printed per the hiring entities instructions.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 12:07pm
Msg #449182

What verse of this song is it that we are now on?

Virtually every manifestation of this issue could be resolved if the notary kept firmly in mind that his legal role is to <identify> the signer, not to match names, unless there is a state statute that requires matching.

If I reasonably believed that the person before me was the person referred to in the documents, I would have notarized in a heartbeat. That's especially true with surnames after marriage. If the lender then had a problem with matching names and IDs, that's their option, but I would have fulfilled my legal role in the process.

Reply by Stoli on 1/6/13 12:16pm
Msg #449185

Hugh, what name would you enter on the notary certificate:

the name on her current identification, or the name as presented on the documents?

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 12:59pm
Msg #449194

Re: Hugh, what name would you enter on the notary certificate:

"Jane Doe, who signed as Jane Doe-RayMe"

Reply by emilysigns on 1/6/13 1:36pm
Msg #449200

Re: Hugh, what name would you enter on the notary certificate:

Hugh,

That was a fair response. I appreciate your feedback. Pertaining to revisiting old subjects, I will try to avoid posting anything on a subject that might have been previously addressed going forward. However, it's likely at this point almost all topics have been previously addressed in one iteration or another on this site.

if I do slip, feel free to disregard my post.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 1:49pm
Msg #449204

Did not intend to chastise you for posing the question

New people join this forum all the time. OldePhartz such as I often have trouble remembering where the zipper is when we go to the bathroom. As a result, there are always going to be recurring questions, and there should be. It would just be nice if we had a more efficient way of handling them.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/6/13 3:52pm
Msg #449219

Re: Hugh, what name would you enter on the notary certificate:

"Jane Doe, who signed as Jane Doe-RayMe"

That might work in Texas, but that wouldn't fly in CA. We can only write in a name. Personally, I'd do what Hugh would do, only in the notarial certificate, I'd enter the name on the ID and leave it at that.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 1/7/13 8:52am
Msg #449290

Marian & Hugh - re: name entered into cert

I can't make sense of this, help me out? The way I'm seeing it, you (as a notary) either ARE satisfied that the individual before you is the individual described, or you are not. If you ARE satisfied, then how do you justify putting a condition in your cert - isn't that the effect of changing the name in the cert to match the id, rather than using the name as used to describe the individual in the document?

To condition the cert (such as I believe you are, or are attempting to) is effectively saying "I do NOT feel satisfied that this individual is (as named in the document), but I will only go so far as to say I believe they are (the name on the ID). And ... what's the value in that?

We are not certifying a "name", we are attesting to our satisfaction as to the identity of an individual.

FWIW - here in MI, on a recordable document the names in the body, below the signature line and in the notarial cert must match in order to record.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/7/13 10:02am
Msg #449296

Re: Marian & Hugh - re: name entered into cert

***here in MI, on a recordable document the names in the body, below the signature line and in the notarial cert must match in order to record.***

Is that by statute, by administrative regulation, or by fiat from the recorder? If the latter, then it is certainly subject to challenge.

I'm not sure I understand your point at all. I haven't posted a condition in my certification, I have posted additional information that would explain why I notarized a document with a variation on a name that is not on the ID I used. I remain befuddled by why this is such an issue.

A signer is in front of me. She presents ID in the name of Betty Boops. Seated with her is a man who says he is Donald Droops, and that he is the husband of Betty Boops. Betty wishes to sign a deed made out in the name of Betty Boops-Droops. She concurs that she is married to Donald Droops. They present me with a utility bill addressed to Betty Boops-Droops, sent to the same address as that on Betty's driver's license.

At that point I have to a reasonable certainty satisfied myself that Betty Boops is indeed Betty Boops-Droops. Why on earth would I not notarize her signature? And why would I not note in my certification that she signed not as Betty Boops, which is the name recorded in my journal, but as Betty Boops-Droops?

Reply by HisHughness on 1/7/13 10:06am
Msg #449297

Clarification

Yes, of course the name in the notarial certification should match the signature and the document name. In Texas, "Betty Boops, who signed as Betty Boops-Droops," would take care of that. I suspect it would also in Michigan.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 1/7/13 10:51am
Msg #449311

Hugh

It is by statute - MI recording statute. *I will clarify that when I say "body" of the document, I refer to the vesting in the case of a deed or mtg.

I've noted with interest that CA recording statutes do not contain the requirement (ours is worded "there shall be no discrepancy..."), and certainly this enables notaries in CA to put a different name variant in the cert than what is used in/on the document w/o a recording issue.

I'm trying to see your logic, and understand your intent but still am of the opinion that your example is, effectively, a condition to your notarial cert.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 1/7/13 10:09am
Msg #449300

Re: Marian & Hugh - re: name entered into cert

I pretty much agree with ReneeK MI. My state has now law about what name to put in a cert. I think if it ever went to court, the court would want to know if the notary did what needed to be so that the notarization has it's intended effect. The intended effect is to assure the person relying on the notarization that the notary had made a reasonable effort to assure that:

1 a person appeared, took an oath & signed (or gave an acknowledgement of having signed)

2 had a right to use the name that appears in the document (not that the name on the document is the signer's one true name; aliases are legal)

3 did not appear to be coerced

4 appeared to have a general understanding of the document.

Since notaries are allowed to notarize for strangers upon presentation of satisfactory evidence, and since most names are borne by more than one person, there can be no expectation that a notary can guarantee that the signer is the person who the relying party wanted to sign the document; all the notary can say, with reasonable certainty, is that the signer had the right to use the name in the document.

Reply by IDANotary on 1/6/13 2:21pm
Msg #449205

Way back in the days when I was a Notary in California, the same thing happened to me. It was an Attorney and his supposed wife. Her ID did not match the documents. She said she just never had it changed on her ID. Alright, so I start the conversation with "and how long have ya'll been married?" I am at this time recording his info into my Journal as if everything is proceeding. She says "7 years." California license are only good for 4 years so I ask, "Why didn't you have your married name put on your ID when you renewed the last time?" Her response was something like she was too busy or too something... Well here we are in Orange County, Dana Pointe with a view of the Harbor and she is not too concerned with proclaiming to the world that she is this man's wife. Hmmmm..... I then ask if they have a Marriage License, immediate response was NO. She had nothing in her purse or wallet with the married name. I'm sorry folks, I gotta go...

Reply by Stoli on 1/6/13 2:37pm
Msg #449208

You’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic

IMO – ( I-MY-O ) You’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic if the transaction is ever called into question.

California doesn’t provide that language on the notary acknowledgment----as far as I know.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/6/13 3:50pm
Msg #449218

Honestly... I don't get this. What is the big deal with matching names?? There is NO LAW (in CA) that says names must match. NONE. We are only told that we must have "satisfactory evidence" that the person is who they claim to be. You have to use your own judgment there. The definition is plainly listed in the handbook... and nowhere, anywhere are we told that a name must match exactly. Nowhere.

If I was satisfied that this woman was the same woman described in the document, I would have notarized her signature... provided the signature she used matched the one on the ID. And in the notarial certificate I would only write the name on the ID.... since that's the name you're certifying. I don't pay much attention to the name(s) written in the document because the content of a document is NOT our concern (this is also in our handbook). We're only told that, in the case of an acknowledgment, we should make sure the the person signing is the person described in the document...using the satisfactory evidence rules. And, in many cases... you simply CANNOT make that match anyway, such as when you have an attorney in fact signing. By CA law, we're not allowed to determine or certify their legal status as the AIF, we have to take them at their word.

Beyond that? It's NOT YOUR problem nor responsibility to make sure that names match. I know people harp on this and get name matching paranoia all over the place.... but I have never ONCE had anything come back or been told something's been rejected in situations like these.

On a personal note... I would never let another notary tell me how to sign my name. Not ever. It's none of their business. I have a way I sign my name for different types of things, and I have my reasons for doing it. If the company I use isn't okay with that, then they don't want my business bad enough, do they?

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/6/13 5:22pm
Msg #449238

Here we go again

Honestly, I DO get this. I'm really sick of this endless argument, (believe it or not) so for those of you who feel you'll get the loan signed no matter what because your judgment, your satisfaction, your sense of reasonableness, your ability to perfectly read every situation are so infallible and so righteous, then go ahead. Your subjective abilities are way beyond mine.

"We are only told that we must have satisfactory evidence that the person is who they claim to be."

So true, and as the SOS wrote in its 2012 newsletter: "The only forms of identification (satisfactory evidence) you can use to identify a person appearing before you are listed in California Civil Code section 1185." Which, as we all know, are certain types of government issued ID.

"You have to use your own judgment there." No, I don't. Judgment varies from person to person. My judgment is no more and no less reliable than anyone else's. And there are plenty of people out there whose judgment I am not interested in. Everybody keeps talking about satisfaction and judgment and reasonable this and absence of that. Anything to get the loan signed. Anything to facilitate commerce. I'm interested in one thing as an NSA: identifying the person in front of me as the person the lender wants signing the docs. And there's only one way for me that: do not pass go, do not go to jail, just Show Me The Proof. I don't want to hear: oh I use my husband's name even though I've never taken his name; oh, I took title in my maiden name but now I use my husband's name even though I have no ID for that; oh, that was my mother's maiden name but I haven't used that since I don't remember when and I don't know why it's on the loan documents; and on and on it goes. Don't bother to show me your marriage certificate, your birth certificate, your social security card, your Costco card, your Kaiser card. Don't make me sit there forcing myself to think, gee, you must really be the person named in these documents although you have no ID in one or more of those names, I mean who else would you be? and do you have any other ID with anything on it? and please help me so I don't have to identify you as the person who should be signing these docs and now I have to use my judgment and check around and see if there is any reason why I wouldn't believe your silly story, etc. I'm just not going there.

"If I was satisfied that this woman was the same woman described in the document, I would have notarized her signature..." I don't go into a loan signing seeking satistaction. I want proof.
" ...provided the signature she used matched the one on the ID." Are you kidding? The signature on my ID no way resembles how I sign my name now, and if a notary got in my face about that, I would have to say that is A. none of his/her business how I signed my name then and how I sign now. B. Way beyond the paygrade of a mere notary and C. Are you a professional, qualified handwriting analyst?

"And in the notarial certificate I would only write the name on the ID.... since that's the name you're certifying." How far are you willing to take this? If the name on the doc says Geronimo but Sitting Bull (according to his ID) is signing then Sitting Bull goes in the ack? With that approach, you'd never even have to look at the name on the docs. You're only nterested in the guy signing. How do you know Sitting Bull is the person the lender wants signing? Whatever happened to Geronimo? I'm not interested in certifying the signature of someone based solely on his ID when it comes to loan documents. I want proof Geronimo is the guy signing if that's the guy the lender wants signing.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 6:15pm
Msg #449246

Re: Here we go again

***I'm interested in one thing as an NSA: identifying the person in front of me as the person the lender wants signing the docs.***

And there you hit upon the nub of the issue, cloak it though you did with all sorts of extraneous and self-congratulatory encrustations.

As an NSA, matching signagures on documents and ID may be critical, depending on the hiring party's demands. As a notary public, that is only one consideration. If, as in the intant case, I was confronted with a disparity between the ID and the documents, and if it meant a lost rate lock if the loan did not sign, I would unhesitatingly sign the loan even in the face of lender instructions to the contrary, and then let the lender decide whether to accept it; at worst, the lender is out a trip fee. If the lender accepts the docs as signed, everything is hunky dory all the way around -- except, I gather, in your corner of the signing agent universe, where you might be having an apoplectic fit.

And, just to be clear, I would sign the loan rate lock or no.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/6/13 6:50pm
Msg #449254

Re: Here we go again

I don't know why you have to get so incredibly nasty and personal every time you and I disgree, Hugh. In any case, the point isn't about matching names. I have never said an ID has to match the name of the docs and I never will. But when a name or a MI on the docs is nowhere to be found on the ID, that's where I draw the line. In other words, the docs contain a name(s) for which borrower has no ID. Don't you think that's crazy? Never mind, don't answer.
And I don't want to ever be in the position where somebody asks why I accepted ID for Maria Delgado when Maria Garcia was the name on the docs. And believe me, I have been faced with that scenarioor similar ones more times than I want to count.

I have always been disheartened by NRers who vow they will never post again because everybody's so "mean" .... I've often thought to myself they should just blow it off and realize we're just sharing opinions, but now I know what they're saying. They've got more productive things to do, I guess.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/6/13 7:14pm
Msg #449258

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

Your self-righteousness is ill-fitting, GG, considering how personally emphatic you were in your contrary post.

Those little tiffs aside, though, my proposal of marriage still stands. Can I assume that your response is still that you are thinking it over?

Reply by Stoli on 1/6/13 9:34pm
Msg #449273

I agree with GoldGirl 200%.


And, Hugh, my proposal of marriage still stands. Can I assume that you are thinking it over?

Reply by linda/ca on 1/7/13 2:59am
Msg #449286

GOLDGIRL: Don't stop posting your 100% accurate input! N/M n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 6:17pm
Msg #449247

Note to GG...

Probably ought to skip my posts.

I am likely to disagree with you sometimes.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/6/13 6:35pm
Msg #449251

Re: Note to GG...

Aaah, Brenda - we disagree alot; however that's no reason for me to not read your posts. I read them all the time. We don't have to disagree or agree to post or read ... however, have it your way.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/6/13 7:51pm
Msg #449260

How often do you get a close, near perfect match on

ID and documents so that the notary does not have to think about it or use judgment.

I put this under Marian's post, but anyone?

In Texas, I would say it is less than 50%.

Reply by jba/fl on 1/6/13 7:58pm
Msg #449262

Much greater than 50%, IME. n/m

Reply by VT_Syrup on 1/6/13 8:24pm
Msg #449265

Re: How often do you get a close, near perfect match on

Just for name issues, I'd guess 90% of people. (But since there are usually 2 people per signing, it's maybe 80% of signings.) We also use judgement in deciding that the ID looks genuine, that the signer's picture is close enough to their present appearance, that the eye color, height, & weight are close enough.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 1/6/13 8:40pm
Msg #449266

Re: How often do you get a close, near perfect match on

My experience in NY was that it would be worse than in TX.

NY driver licenses have a limit on the number of characters for the name field (I think it's 20 in total; might be less). Middle names and initials were routinely left off the license, and if you had a particularly long combination of first and last name, they only used your first initial. I came across more than one where there was only a first initial, and a LOT where there was no middle name or initial

Years ago I had a boss whose name was Rengaswamy J. Sunderasen. I forget what the J stood for, but it doesn't matter. We called him RS; NYS considered him to be R Sundaresan. How do you reconcile that when you're trying to match ID to the name in the document? Do you tell Rengaswamy that he can't get a loan - EVER - because his state-issued ID doesn't exactly match the name on the loan documents?

According to some CA notaries, that would be the case.

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/6/13 9:11pm
Msg #449271

Re: How often do you get a close, near perfect match on

<<<NY driver licenses have a limit on the number of characters for the name field (I think it's 20 in total; might be less). Middle names and initials were routinely left off the license, and if you had a particularly long combination of first and last name, they only used your first initial.....Years ago I had a boss whose name was Rengaswamy J. Sunderasen.>>>

And if his middle name is Jeffersen - ALL of that...Rengaswamy Jeffersen Sunderasen would be spelled out on a CA DL or ID. I've seen DLs with names that had more letters than the alphabet - and it took THREE rows!! Therefore, there's no issue with limited characters on IDs.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 1/6/13 11:22pm
Msg #449281

Re: How often do you get a close, near perfect match on

"And if his middle name is Jeffersen - ALL of that...Rengaswamy Jeffersen Sunderasen would be spelled out on a CA DL or ID. I've seen DLs with names that had more letters than the alphabet - and it took THREE rows!! Therefore, there's no issue with limited characters on IDs."

In CA, perhaps. But if he was trying to sign a loan before you in CA using a valid NY license, he would be SOL - because you want to see that the name on the docs exactly matches the name on his official government-issued ID.

What are you notarizing? The signature of the signer, or the contents of the documents?

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/7/13 5:53am
Msg #449287

Re: How often do you get a close, near perfect match on

"What are you notarizing? The signature of the signer, or the contents of the documents?"

Exactly.

Thanks to those who responded regarding this question. Would appreciate more feedback from any others.

Final remark on this issue, before assuming that any of these answers are accurate, consult your notary administrator' s office and get something in writing. Renee' from Mi did that on this topic and posted it awhile back. The response was not what she expected.

That way, you have something to that can be used as reference.

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/7/13 4:32pm
Msg #449360

Re: How often do you get a close, near perfect match on

<<<In CA, perhaps. But if he was trying to sign a loan before you in CA using a valid NY license, he would be SOL - because you want to see that the name on the docs exactly matches the name on his official government-issued ID.>>>

No where did I say a name must *exactly* match. If the signer has a NY license - for which I already understand that other state's DMV does things differently, and R. Sunderasen is the name on the NY ID and the docs say Rengaswamy J. Sunderasen...it would most likely be a GO. "Sunderasen" is uncommon.

<<<What are you notarizing? The signature of the signer, or the contents of the documents?>>>

The signature on a doc whose contents bear the printed name of that signature.

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/6/13 10:15pm
Msg #449277

Brenda

Not sure about other states, but in CA, the full name from the birth certificate goes on the DL or ID - male or female. For a married woman, the name can either stay as is, change to first, middle, husband's last name only or change to first, middle, maiden - husband's last name as in: Lillie Marie Jones marries Henry Edward Green. Her name can stay Lillie Marie Jones, change to Lillie Marie Green or become Lillie Marie Jones-Green.

It is not an option in CA to put an initial where there's a name. In other words, Lillie Marie Jones cannot choose to be Lillie M. Jones or L. M. Jones on a DL or ID. On paperwork, they can do what they want but not on a government issued DMV DL or ID - full names required in CA.

To answer your question, in CA there typically is not a problem with the ID having more info than the documents - usually. A "Sr. or Jr. or III" may be left out of the ID but all-in-all the first, middle, last names are there. There may be the issue with a married woman using her maiden name, but other than that, and few other oddities like non-U.S. cultural name issues or entertainers using stage names, there usually isn't a problem with enough info on the ID to cover the shorter name variations.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/7/13 5:55am
Msg #449288

Re: Brenda

Thanks, Lisa. Based on the many posts on ID, this is very surprising to me.

Reply by LKT/CA on 1/6/13 8:53pm
Msg #449267

TOTALLY agree with emilysigns and Goldgirl n/m