The compliance requirements of every lender I worked for required the name to be signed to match the variant shown:
John L. Smith (sign: John L. Smith)
a/k/a John Smith (sign: John Smith)
etc.
The doc has two purposes - one is to attest that they are "one and the same as ..." The other purpose is to attest and provide a confirming example of the variant, in case the loan pkg or file contains a doc signed with that variant. Say he signs "John Smith" on everything and inadvertantly over-signs something "John L. Smith". You can use the Sign. Aff. to 'back up' the fact that HE attested it is HIM, and this is the 'mark' for that.
I'm not an atty, but it seems to me that what she's telling you to do (use one consistant signature regardless of printed variant) would NEGATE the use of the doc. for the very purpose it's designed. I mean - he affirms they're all one and the same person, but the 'mark' for each variant is the SAME? What ties him to a variant mark, then? |
