I have recently been assigned a refinance signing order, and during the appointment confirmation process, the wife disclosed that the name on her driver’s license will not correspond with the name listed on the loan documents. She had previously reached out to the title company about this discrepancy, and they had indicated that an “AKA” (Also Known As) designation would be incorporated into the loan documents to address the issue. Before proceeding with printing the loan package, I conducted a thorough review of the documents, but I was unable to locate any revisions or modifications that would formally connect the loan documents to the wife under her alternative name. Consequently, I initiated a phone call with the title company to discuss this apparent inconsistency and seek clarification. During our conversation, a representative from the title company informed me that their mortgage team had determined that it would be permissible for the wife to sign the loan package, despite the name mismatch. I then carefully explained to the title company representative that, according to Florida state statutes, there is a legal requirement for the name on the identification presented to match the name on the documents being notarized, and that a discrepancy in this regard constitutes a violation of those statutes. I further elaborated on the potential ramifications, emphasizing that if the name on the identification does not align with the name on the documents, it could potentially allow anyone to sign the documents, thereby placing me at risk of legal accountability and liability. Stay on your “Toes” fellow Loan Signing Agents… 
I had a similar signing several months ago. The wife had a name on her id that was essentially a nick name that she some how got on her id forty years ago. Title made the necessary changes to include the AKA language but the lender would only up date 4 of the docs. In those 4 they had her still signing with the name that she didn’t have id for with an AKA. The other docs in the lenders package they wanted her to manually correct every document where her name appeared to the correct AKA statement. To title’s credit they refused to allow that to happen and canceled the signing. I had already determined that I was uncomfortable with the lenders solution and wasn’t going to execute the signing.
@cfletcher Interesting. There used to be a provision in our statutes and in the handbook provided by the state that addressed this issue - allowing the notary to use specific wording, i.e. “appeared before me Jane Doe, who represented to me that she took title as Jane Smith, and provided ■■■ ID in the name of Jane Doe”
Sorry to see they seem to have done away with that - I could not find it in current statutes
Yes, the complexities introduced when executing notarial acts, particularly concerning discrepancies between a signer’s identification and the names appearing on the documents, are undeniably increasing the challenges we face. To clarify this situation further, I recently reached out to the National Notary Association’s (NNA) hotline for guidance. During this consultation, the representative I spoke with affirmed my interpretation that, as notaries, we are fundamentally required to ensure a direct and accurate match between the identification presented by the signer and the name as it appears within the legal documents. While that was the initial understanding, the NNA representative also presented an alternative approach to handle situations involving such name mismatches. This alternative involves the potential utilization of credible witnesses, but the success of this method hinges entirely on the hiring company’s willingness to accept and implement such a procedure. It is crucial to remember that, specifically within the state of Florida, our actions must be in strict compliance with the stipulations outlined in Florida Statutes, section 117.05(b). This particular experience has, unfortunately, underscored a concerning trend: it has become apparent that if we, as notaries, do not readily acquiesce to the specific demands or interpretations presented by these companies regarding how to proceed with a signing, there is a noticeable and concerning tendency for them to simply remove us from the assignment. They then promptly replace us with another notary who is apparently more willing to conform to their preferred methods, even if those methods might raise concerns about best practices or compliance with regulations. To illustrate this point further, I had diligently collaborated with the title company to address a situation where the signer’s identification did not align with the name documented in the loan documents. After engaging in multiple discussions with four different representatives from the title company, each of whom provided assurances that the documents would be amended to reflect the signer’s correct name alongside the “FKA” or “Also Known As” designation, I was then abruptly notified that the order had been canceled. Immediately following that initial cancellation notice, I inquired about the possibility of either resubmitting the order or having it reassigned to me. However, only a few minutes after my inquiry, I received a follow-up message that unequivocally stated that the lender had indeed canceled the order because of the necessary document revisions, and, disturbingly, that another signing agent had already completed the closing in its place.
Translation: they found a notary who didn’t question the ID discrepancy and did what they were told to do, whether legal or not.
You state that with zero proof.
@LindaH-FL Yes, it is truly astonishing, but they have, in fact, sent yet another email, and, quite frankly, this latest communication has proven to be even more disheartening and demoralizing than any of the previous interactions I had experienced. The overall tone employed in this most recent email was, to put it mildly, exceptionally concerning, as it seemed to intentionally create the impression that my services and contributions are, in their estimation, easily and readily replaceable. What is truly alarming is the subtle suggestion that not only my professional services but also, by extension, the very stability and operational success of their business could potentially be jeopardized, seemingly because of my adherence to professional standards and ethical conduct. These successive and increasingly troubling communications have, without a doubt, triggered a profound wave of introspection within me. I am now finding myself deeply and seriously questioning whether my tenure and career trajectory as a loan signing agent has, perhaps, reached a particularly pivotal and critical juncture—a point where the decisions I make now could have substantial and potentially irreversible consequences, even potentially marking a point from which there may be no easy return to a sustainable and fulfilling career path. It is also imperative to underscore that this situation is, regrettably, not an isolated incident; rather, it appears there is a disturbing and concerning trend emerging where various companies are increasingly employing subtle, yet potent, implications or are even exerting undue and inappropriate pressure to encourage us, as notaries and signing agents, to essentially “color outside the lines” and potentially compromise our professional integrity and ethical obligations in order to simply complete a given assignment, no matter the potential legal or ethical ramifications. Life, at times, does present us with moments when we feel as though we have arrived at a metaphorical “crossroads,” compelling us to confront and make extraordinarily difficult decisions about which path to ultimately take and where we, as professionals, ultimately wish to proceed. It has become evident that many companies have made the cold and calculating determination that the current oversupply of labor within our industry has granted them significant leverage, allowing them to, in effect, treat us as disposable labor capital, implementing a strategy that mirrors the concept of planned obsolescence – that is, the practice of intentionally designing products or services with artificially limited useful lives, or employing deliberately weak designs, so that they become obsolete and require replacement after a predetermined and often quite short, period.
Agree with you @cfletcher 100% - what I do wish is Florida would pass legislation (a la California) that would make it illegal for parties to attempt to coerce notaries into doing something illegal - subject them to fine and/or imprisonment. One can dream
Thank you, Linda. Some may say “California is the land of nuts and fruits”. However, most of our laws are there for good reason.
Excerpt from the 2026 California Notary Handbook:
“GOVERNMENT CODE
§ 8225. Improper notarial acts, solicitation, coercion or influence of performance; misdemeanor
(a) Any person who solicits, coerces, or in any manner influences a notary public to perform
an improper notarial act knowing that act to be an improper notarial act, including any act
required of a notary public under Section 8206, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding any other limitation of time described in Section 802 of the Penal Code,
or any other provision of law, prosecution for a violation of this offense shall be commenced
within four years after discovery of the commission of the offense, or within four years after
the completion of the offense, whichever is later.
(c) The penalty provided by this section is not an exclusive remedy, and does not affect any
other relief or remedy provided by law.”
But if the laws are good why does California rank high in fraud? Number of people?
Dunno. Probably high populations PLUS tourists.
Re-draw of docs due to ID discrepancy is a common occurence. Part of our job to send them back and say we cannot notarize the signature. In my state we are allowed to omit a middle name or a suffix etc, but not add one.
I had a signing with a client who had two last names. She could only verify one. Title added an AKA for the unverified name. My question is aren’t we supposed to verify both names? Fairly new notary here. Please be kind.
Always ask Title. It’s the only way to be correct.
Thank you for your response.
@Trishdiffey It is my recommendation that you adhere to your state’s statutes for guidance regarding the verification of a signer’s name. In a recent signing engagement, the signer’s identification presented a name that did not correspond with the name listed on the documents and the signer had told me due to marriage a name change had occurred and the signer didn’t have the proper form of identification of any type. In that situation the person could have been an imposter and I wouldn’t have known. So, I promptly contacted the title company/lender, informing them of the discrepancy and explaining that I could not proceed with the notarization under these circumstances. The resolution required that they revise the documents. Initially, the title company suggested proceeding, but I declined, as such action would have constituted a violation of Florida Statute 117.05(5). This statute stipulates that a notary public may not notarize a signature unless they possess personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence confirming that the signer is the individual described in the instrument. It is essential to refrain from relying on title companies or lenders for guidance on matters governed by state statutes, particularly those pertaining to the verification of a signer’s identity. If the title company or lender decided to revise the documents to use “FKA” or “AKA”, that’s their option to do so, I just have to follow my state’s statute pertaining to identity verification.
How is she signing the docs? That’s the name you verify (providing this is in keeping with your notary regulations - title can’t help you with that)
If a notary aquiences to the Title/Lender’s improper desires and the documents are challenged, a day, week, month or decade latter, the Title/Lender are on the hook, not the notary, correct? Please, please, please say NO!!! If you said Yes, be like a fish and watch out for the hook!
@Trishdiffey, it is our responsibility to meticulously verify the name that is explicitly written on the signature line within the document that is being notarized. Throughout my experience, I have never had to verify a signer’s previous name under the terms of “AKA” or “FKA”.
I’ve seen the term FKA used when a deed of trust changes from the name under which someone took the title to the married name if they changed their name it’s not unusual. It just have to be sure to instruct them exactly how to sign.