Even if documents print AIF

[johnsonps306]

I was pretty sure a signer has to spell out Attorney In Fact in the signature. But if the signature line has it printed AIF - is that true?

[Arichter]

Every company has their own (apparently lawyer’s) interpretation of what is ‘correct’, so I ALWAYS ask & get ‘their way’ in writing. Even when I have done many others for same co.–I’ve seen them change. On rare occasions when I haven’t been able to get a timely answer, I’ve defaulted to ‘sign exactly as typed’ with no repercussions.

[johnsonps306]

That’s what I was thinking was if it’s typed AIF they can do that. I’ve asked title but not getting an answer. Thanks.

[mkinamdar]

Nope, AIF printed on the line doesn’t mean they can just sign their name. They still need to spell out “Attorney in Fact” or at least write “AIF” next to their signature. The printed AIF is just a guide, not a replacement for the full designation. Think of it like a pre-printed “Signature” line, you still gotta sign, right? Same deal.

[johnsonps306]

That wasn’t the question. They have to sign it exactly how it’s printed which is xxx signed by xxx as AIF. And I know everything has to be signed but I wasn’t sure if they could use AIF instead of Attorney in Fact. With Power of Attorney you can’t sign POA so seeing AIF used made me stop a minute. Because one of the notarizations spells it all out but the signature line says AIF. I’ll probably go with AIF if title doesn’t answer because that’s how it is printed in the signature.

[LindaH-FL]

I hope for your sake they got the notary certs right for you - signing in a representative capacity. Does WA require that?

[johnsonps306]

The certs are right. I’m not signing, the actual AIF is signing. One cert says AIF and one says attorney in fact. But all the signature lines say AIF.