Here's a scenario for which I would appreciate some assistance:

When we order a title insurance policy, we will occasionally get the following in the commitment: "We find the grantee(s) named ... are: Jane Doe, formerly known as Michelle Doe."

It appears our present practice is to title the mortgage as "Jane Doe, formerly known as Michelle Doe." Is the "formerly known as part" really required? Wouldn't it be sufficient to simply title the mortgage as "Jane Doe?"

Second, would you recommend that, if the additional verbiage is required, we include all of that on the note and other loan documents as well so that they consistently mirror each other?

You just hit a sore spot for me, JD. I HATE this nonsense so forgive me if I rant a bit.

As a former title insurance person and closing officer, I've seen so much trouble perpetuated by improper use of fka. Unless Michele was Jane's first name and she stopped using it, what are the chance Jane was EVER Michele??!! FKA should ONLY be used for a transition from a maiden to a married name. PERIOD. And that should ONLY happen on the first mortgage. 35 years later, no one should be putting my married name fka my maiden name on anything.

All too often, instead of correcting a document mistake, someone will slap fka on the next doc. That's just plain WRONG! Correct the mistake, do not perpertuate it. At the very least stop the madness and do not continue to carry the fka. You're paying off the last mortgage and it takes the fka with it out of the picture. finito! From here on, get the poor person's name right.

Caveat: If the deed has this ridiculous fka on it, suggest the borrower do a QCD to herself to get it straightened out once and for all. It's a one page doc you can fill out for her and get filed.

Your example confuses me tho. Usually you're talking about Jane Doe formerly known as Jane Smith. Why the Jane/Michele thing?

Truffle Royale:

Never need to ask for forgiveness for rants; my ramblings usually look like rants. In any case, the more info you provide, the more I learn.

LOL!!! Duh! Yep, I meant Jane Doe, fka Jane Smith. Screwed up in my example, didn't I? Think it comes from banging my head onto the desk too many times... That and not enough NoDoz the day of my original post...

Thanks for your reply. After posting my question, it dawned on me that it might be as you so aptly explained. The whole thing makes complete sense to me now.

However, I did come across this with great frequency at a former bank where the demographic/ethnic composition of our borrowers was far more diverse. An applicant would say her name was Jane Doe, title would show Michelle Doe, and she would sign as Michelle Jane Doe.

Thanks again, and sorry for the confusion!!

This is an example of an AKA (also known as). However she shows on title is how you would prepare and she must sign on your mortgage no matter how she signs her name on the application. Rather than try to tie the application to the mortgage with an aka, we just have the borrowers sign a name affidavit listing all the permutations of their name. In this case the affidavit would list Jane Doe, Michelle Doe and Michelle Jane Doe. Cleaner and simpler.

It's just a real PITA because a teeny bit more time and effort at the time of purchase would get the right name on title and educate the borrowers about the importance of always using the exact same name when doing anything with their property.