Posted by CaNotary777 on 9/5/13 12:14am
Msg #483264

What would YOU have done...

I had a signing few days back which I decided to not go ahead with when I reached the borrower's residence because on the name on the documents was" Robert Brown Sr" at the and of his name and his driving license had the name Robert Brown.
Although I declined to go ahead with the signing, ( since he didn't have a an identifying document with Sr in it) I was not sure if I had taken the right decision ( of declining). Because I had observed the following things which told me that the dude sitting in front of me Robert brown was most certainly the man named in the document, albeit with a suffix-Sr.

1) he was NOT a random person who called me to notarize a document, but someone who was well researched by the lender.
2) The name/ signature variation affidavit which also had the name which was on his driver’s license -- Robert Brown” as we understand the name variations are chosen by the lender after carefully and diligently running credit checks and other checks and every name used by the borrower is then placed on the NAME VARIATION affidavit. hand one of the names was ROBERT BROWN ( the one on his Drivers license)
3) I also found one of the tax documents carried the name Robert Brown and NOT Robert Brown Sr.
4) I also called the Lender and told their representative that the name on the drivers license DID NOT have a “Sr” in it. He said it was ok since this guy had TAKEN TITLE ( on his property as Robert Brown Sr. since his son is name is the SAME he said and to avoid confusion he took title as “ sr.) so the Title company was aware that the MAN SIGNING THE DOCS AND present with me in the room in his house was indeed the borrower.
5) the address given to me was exactly where the man was sitting -- another proof that he was the same guy-- the borrower and that too of the same age! as mentioned in the document.
6) Driver license had the name Robert Brown and the picture MATCHED the borrower’s face
7) taking all above into consideration I had not a shadow of doubt that this man was indeed the man named in the document and that he had taken the title as Robert Brown Sr. only so that his son who has the same name may not have right over his property

Would appreciate the advice of experienced notaries on the above. Thank you very much

Reply by notarydi/CA on 9/5/13 2:16am
Msg #483265

as a notary you can only notarize him as Robert Brown. Period. Regardless of what other things you observed, he only has i.d. as Robert Brown that is acceptable in the eyes of the SOS. That said, I have seen it done that title/escrow instructs to have all docs signed as Robert Brown and have him initial by where the "Sr." is. Title/escrow will go back and "///" through the "Sr." once they get the docs back. Your notarizations are all done as Robert Brown to conform to what you have i.d. for. I believe title/escrow does a grant deed (?) to clear up the chain of title with the erroneous name of Robert Brown, Sr. And, not that it is perhaps really erroneous, you just do not have i.d. that falls within the guidelines of the SOS.

Needless to say, as a notary/loan signing agent it is not our jobs to make the above decision to "fix" things. I had a similar situation where the documents were drawn as Mary Jane Doe. She was currently on title as Mary Jane Doe. She only had i.d. as Jane Doe. She said the last notary did not have a problem with her i.d. Again, I can't account for what other notaries will take. I can only notarize as Jane Doe. I advised title/escrow that she only had i.d. as Jane Doe and that was all I could notarize her as. That said, they instructed me to have her sign everything as Jane Doe and initial by the "Mary" and they would go back and "///" through the Mary and do a grant deed to correct the chain of title. All my notarizations were done as Jane Doe. The lender was fine with it all. It was a major PIA to have her initial everywhere the "Mary" was. But, it was the only way to complete the notarization legally and save the signing and save the rate lock that was expiring.

Again, I would never take it upon myself to make the decision to proceed with a signing in the above manner. Only at the direction of title/escrow would I proceed as above.

Hope this helps. JMHO.....

Reply by VT_Syrup on 9/5/13 7:35am
Msg #483267

No doubt others will tell you that there is no CA law or rule saying you must exactly match the name on the ID to the name on the doc, only use "reasonable reliance" on the ID to establish the name of the signer. Leaving that aside, it isn't at all clear if the suffix is part of the name. There are court decisions in Texas saying it definitely isn't part of the name, it's a description. There is a court decision in Connecticut saying there isn't any law in that state concerning the proper use of suffixes. The West law encyclopedia says it's part of the description. The federal REAL ID regulations say a legal name is the first, middle, and last names; no mention of a suffix.

So what about CA? I don't know. If you look at an official California Department of Health worksheet for registering out-of-hospital births, there is no place for a suffix in the name field (but no doubt some people stick one in there anyway):

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/birthdeathmar/Documents/Out-of-HospitalBirthPackage-(06-13).pdf

If the suffix is part of the description, and not part of the name, you can treat it like other descriptive information on the ID such as eye color, height, and weight. You'd use your judgement to decide if any discrepancies make sense. A woman who's hair color doesn't match the ID? No problem. A 100 pound weight gain since a 4 year old license was issued? Maybe, but reason to ask for more ID. A 10 inch height loss since a 6 month old license was issued? Not bloody likely. A 50 year old guy with a Sr suffix on a document but not the license? Entirely possible.

Reply by sueharke on 9/5/13 3:02pm
Msg #483323

One interesting experience I had was with two signers, John Jones Jr and John Jones Sr. I know I did the signing as the borrowers were very helpful because of past issues with the names.

Reply by MW/VA on 9/5/13 8:24am
Msg #483268

I run into this all the time. PAW had discussed it back in

the archives. Someone isn't a Sr. until there is a Jr. More often than not, they don't change their d/l's or other forms of ID to reflect that. It's a distinction for credit matters, etc. We only have to be satisfied that the person says who they are supposed to be & are the one's authorized to sign the docs. When it comes to suffixes like Jr., Sr., III, etc. it sometimes appears on the docs & not on their ID's and vice versa. It's a judgment call & I've never allowed it to become a problem. ID's do not always match exactly. They don't have to. We only have to be able to discern whether any funny business is going on.
BTW, I always make sure the suffix appears on the Signature/Name Affidavit, and it's usually already there.
I completely agree with the scenario you posted about. You clearly thought it through. ;-)

Reply by Notarysigner on 9/5/13 9:15am
Msg #483274

I would have done it. There is a difference between

"Representative capacity" and "Authorized capacity". Here in Calif we cannot recognize Representative capacity. The Calif Ack states, "authorized capacity".

Reply by VT_Syrup on 9/5/13 9:41am
Msg #483278

Re: I would have done it. There is a difference between

For purposes of this post, "person" means a legal person, which can include a natural person, a corporation. or a government.

A person acts in a capacity when the person acts on behalf of another person. Using an alias has nothing to do with acting in a capacity. A natural person who uses one or more aliases in connection with a document is not acting in a capacity, because there is no other person he/she is acting on behalf of.

Reply by Notarysigner on 9/5/13 9:54am
Msg #483283

Re: I would have done it. There is a difference between

Your post is a good example of why Ca does not recognize "representative capacity"...Are you "authorized" to represent CaNotary777 ?

In all honesty what representative capacity in Ca would mean, example CaNotary777, Pres.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 9/5/13 10:22am
Msg #483289

Re: I would have done it. There is a difference between

Sure, the document might be signed "John Smith Jr. as President of ABC Corp." And the CA notary would only be putting John Smith Jr. on the certificate. Instead of having a specific statement in the acknowledgement that Smith is representing ABC (like you might find in other states), there is the catch-all wording of the CA certificate, which in effect says that if the signer acknowledges that if he/she is representing someone other than him/herself, the signer has been authorized by the entity being represented to sign.

So CA does recognize representative capacity, but it does not want the notary to verify the capacity.

Reply by Notarysigner on 9/5/13 10:31am
Msg #483290

Sorry but that's not allowed!

>>>> Sure, the document might be signed "John Smith Jr. as President of ABC Corp." <<<

Now can we go back to OP?

Reply by VT_Syrup on 9/5/13 11:10am
Msg #483297

Re: Sorry but that's not allowed!

Um, certainly the signer can sign John Smith Jr. as President of ABC Corp. But the CA notary would only put John Smith Jr. in the acknowledgement certificate.

Reply by jba/fl on 9/5/13 9:13am
Msg #483273

I would have completed the appointment as expected.

I would have been reasonably certain I had the right person and done my job.

Reply by Darlin_AL on 9/5/13 11:11am
Msg #483298

Re: I'd completed it--what did your hiring party say? n/m

Reply by DaveCA/CA on 9/5/13 12:01pm
Msg #483302

Several years ago I had a signing and it was sort of similar I believe. I get to the borrowers' home and ask for ID. Mrs gives me hers and Mr gives me his. I look at Mr and his ID has Robert Brown IV. However, the docs have Robert Brown III. Same scenario as you mentioned. He showed me his tax return, etc and there was no loan app in the package. Anyway, he went on and on how DMV messed up and it has been a big nightmare, yadda yadda. Told him I couldn't do it. Mrs was giving me a hard time too. Informed hiring party and went home.

Next day, I get a call from hiring party saying that they are going to pay me full fee. However, they are going to send another notary out to avoid embarrassment for the borrowers. You see, the "real" Robert Brown had to work late that night and instead of just calling me to tell me that, they tried to have their son sign for him. Granted, the father allegedly gave permission for the son to sign but what if he hadn't and I accepted the ID as valid? Maybe this is oranges and apples but I don't think so. This is, however, my two cents.

Reply by notarydi/CA on 9/5/13 3:21pm
Msg #483326

very good point, Dave....

and, as far as "there is no CA rule that name on i.d. must match exactly name on documents", please take time to read lender's instructions. Pretty much every lender's instructions that I have ever seen state, "name on i.d. must match exactly the name on the documents". And, borrs must sign names exactly as typed. As loan signing agents, the lenders are instructing us and relying on us to procure i.d. that exactly matches the names on the documents. Why is this so important to them? They don't want an unsaleable loan, unguaranteed loan (VA), or uninsured loan (FHA) due to a name discrepancy. It is a secondary marketing nightmare to get it corrected.

just my two cents again.....

Reply by CaNotary777 on 9/5/13 3:41pm
Msg #483332

Thank you Dave and all who contributed. I believe...

after reading the inputs of our esteemed members I'm convinced I took the right decision. The man just did not have any-- not even one--- document to back his claim that he was Robert Brown Sr. I know I lost a signing and I have probably lost a customer for life (they are pi$$ed at me-- probably wont pay a cent either since their purpose was not served). I know the CA law is a bit ambiguous and it does not state in express terms that the name on the identifying document should be exactly the name on the signing documents.
An unwritten rule ( a thumbrule if you will) which is often diligently followed by CA Notaries is
"THE NAME ON THE IDENTIFYING DOCUMENT CAN BE MORE BUT NEVER LESS" [ never underlined!]

Having said that the man just couldn't prove he was Robert Brown Sr. and my conscience wasn't allowing me to go ahead and notarize him as Robert Brown Sr. -- He could also be the son of the dude who had applied for loan -- the true Robert Brown Sr. Anyway I am happy I took the decision I took and backed off. The cardinal rule in this profession is to COVER YOUR BUTTT each time we notarize. I get outrageous requests from customers and sometime even from signing companies too. what saves me is the above rule. And I ardently endeavor to stick to this. Thank you very much everyone who contributed

Reply by PJM/MI on 9/6/13 6:07am
Msg #483395

Sr, Jr

A SR isn't a SR until the JR is born. SR's parents would not have any idea he's going to be a SR until JR is born.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 9/6/13 7:40am
Msg #483405

Re: very good point, Dave....

Interesting. I do read the instructions from each lender, TC, and SS, and I don't recall ever seeing instructions that the name on the ID must exactly match the name on the document. The closest to that I've seen is the first version of the name listed on the name affidavit must exactly match the mortgage and note.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 9/5/13 6:41pm
Msg #483350

I had Jr on docs and turns out it was not him -

Dave from CA makes a good point with his example above. I had a similar situation where it was the Dad and the daughter-n-law taking out cash on a property with the Dad posing as the Jr who was overseas. (Jr on docs and no Jr on ID) I questioned the discrepancy and would not move forward with the signing. Title told me to do it. It was then that the Dad shared the above information hoping to get me to go ahead with the signing “so they could send Jr some funds.” What? By the way they were acting it looked more like they were going to run away together with the money. Score one for caution. Just because you feel title checked them out is not enough. Title/lender doesn’t really check anyone out. That is our job.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 9/5/13 6:49pm
Msg #483352

'Sr' a name or a title -

Whether Sr. is a ‘name’ seems to be an issue for some. Is it a name or is it a title? Does that seem to matter to California? You would have to get the answer to that in writing from the SOS.

Keep in mind though, it is what they are signing as part of their signature and it is the ‘name’ on the documents.

Calling the hiring party or title or lender would definitely be in order for instructions on how they want the situation handled. Do they want things crossed out, initialed, dated, left alone, etc. But, it is totally up to you about the identification of the individual, of course. Only the ID name could go in your certificate regardless of what hiring party is expecting from you. An AKA Affidavit would not cover you as a notary.

Reply by LKT/CA on 9/5/13 8:37pm
Msg #483372

10 Star post, notarydi/CA!!!

Aside from CA SOS notary rules, the bottom line is that companies (whether loan docs or GNW) who require THEIR document to get the signature notarized EXPECT that the name in the doc is the person who appears before the notary. Therefore, those notaries who take the stance that they only ID the signer, name on ID goes on their notarial cert, and to hell with the name printed within the doc is doing companies a great disservice!!!

To answer the OP's question - I would NOT have notarized a signature where the ID says Robert Brown and the docs say Robert Brown, Sr. because Robert Brown on ID may NOT be Robert Brown, Sr. on paper. However, Robert Brown, Sr. on ID *could* be Robert Brown on paper.

Therefore, CA does NOT need a law to say more names on the ID than the paperwork is acceptable and the fewer names on the ID than the paperwork is unacceptable. Such a law is not necessary.

Reply by Juan Chioye on 9/6/13 6:21am
Msg #483396

Re: 10 Star post, notarydi/CA!!!

Normally I use a credible witness in this situation. I doubt a credible witness would, under oath lie about the father posing as the son or the son posing as the father, after you make it painfully clear that he or she is under oath. You record the information on the journal, and I even include a copy of the credible witness ID and turn it in with the package as a precaution with the explanation that he/she is a credible witness. And if he knowingly makes a false statement, the heat would be on the credible witness as that person just committed perjury, and signed on my journal that he/she took an oath as a credible witness for borrower in question as proof. I would NOT trust the name affidavit as too many times have I seen Jr's name being placed as an AKA for the Senior or vice versa.

Satisfies local requirement laws, and it allows you to proceed with the signing. However credible witnesses may not be allowed in your state for real estate transactions. They are here however.