3.8 CONVEYANCES-VARIANCE OF NAME
When shall a variance between the name of the grantee in the next preceding deed be considered a defect of title?
A variance shall not be considered a defect, in the absence of other facts:
(a) when the name of the grantee agrees with the name of the grantor as the latter appears of record in the granting clause, or in the signature, or in the certificate of acknowledgment;
(b) when the variance consists of a commonly recognized abbreviation or derivative;
(c) when the identity of a corporation can be inferred with reasonable certainty from the names used and other circumstances of record, even though the exact name of the corporation is not used and the variations in the name exist from instrument to instrument. Among other variances, addition or omission of the word "the" preceding the name; use or nonuse of the symbol "&" for the word "and"; use or nonuse of abbreviations for "company," "limited," "corporation" or "incorporated"; and inclusion or omission of all or part of a place or location ordinarily may be ignored. Affidavits and recitals of identity may be used and relied upon to obviate variances too substantial or too significant to be ignored;
(d) when the difference is trivial or the error is apparent on the face of the instrument;
(e) when the names, although spelled differently, sound alike or when their sounds cannot be distinguished or when common usage, by corruption or abbreviation, has made their pronunciation identical, and the instruments are not of recent dates;
(f) when a middle name or initial is used in one instrument and not in another, unless the examiner is otherwise put on inquiry;
(g) when both instruments have been of record for more than 21 years.
(Originally effective November 1, 1952; amended and supplemented at various times, the last being May 11, 1967)
Should an objection be made because a grantor or grantee is designated by her husband's given name, as "Mrs. John Doe"?
Yes. Evidence as to the person intended by such designation should be required.
(Effective as amended May 11, 1967; originally effective May 21, 1953)
Should an examiner rely upon a recital purporting to cure an error in the name of a person in the chain of title?
Yes, unless the variance is so great or unless the other circumstances are such as to create a reasonable doubt of the truth of the recital.
(Effective May 21, 1953)