The law firm representing me for my SSDI, rercently sent me some documents, they wanted signed in BLUE ink only.
Why?
Black is the darker color, and I always under the impression one could sign in either blue or black?
Thanks
Q
It’s to distinguish the original document from a photocopy. Makes perfect sense with black/white copies; I don’t know how it relates to color copies.
Signing in blue easily identifies photocopies.
Wow. garygnu must have hit the post button about a tenth of a second after I did.
I hesitated, thinking a slightly different wording might work better.
I’ve heard some states don’t recognize the validity of a signature on legal documents if it’s red, what about other colors, like purple or green?
Any other posters named “Gary” want to jump in here?
My best friend in High School was (and still is) Gary T (I won’t spell out his last name here, but it matches up with “The Boss’s” bass player’s).
So GT, excuse me if I have asked this before, but "Is that you, Jocka-Strock"?
Thanks,
Q
I have a friend named Gary, is that close enough?
I don’t know about legal validity, but the problem with red ink is that it doesn’t photocopy well – hence it would be too easy to copy a document and then sign over the original signature.
When are they going to recognize digital signatures?
Who are “they”…? Some digital signatures are accepted by various companies. They accept them and all inherent risks, which they must deem to be low enough to be worth it.
An ink signature isn’t a guarantee the person is legit either. Maybe a fingerprint would help.
They are recognized for many uses, but usually only within an organization that has defined its own standards. For example, the IRS accepts digital signatures that follow certain criteria, but those criteria aren’t necessarily shared by anyone else.
In order to make them more widespread, we’d need a much broader standard, perhaps set at the federal level or by a very influential business group.
I don’t doubt that you’ve heard this, but I have to ask: where on earth do people get ideas like this from?
Under the UCC § 1-201(39) a signature is “any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing.” Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 134, a signature is “any symbol made or adopted with an intention, actual or apparent, to authenticate the writing as that of the signer.” Furthermore, the comments to that section provides that “[t]he traditional form of signature is of course the name of the signer, handwritten in ink. But initials, thumbprint or an arbitrary code sign may also be used; and the signature may be written in pencil, typed, printed, made with a rubber stamp, or impressed into the paper.” Id., cmt. (a).
So as you can see, the color of the ink used to sign a document is of absolutely no moment. Now, when dealing with non-lawyers, the broad latitude afforded by the law may occasion disbelief and you might finder it easier to sign documents in a conventional way. They might even refuse to accept a document unless signed to their satisfaction, and this requirement is within their rights–the offeror is master of his offer. However, the notion that red-ink signatures are a nullity in the eyes of the law in point of their color is false.
And I agree, he was asked to sign in blue ink to distinguish the original from photocopies. I do the same thing.
Some governmental agencies have different policies than the UCC. These policies are in effect the same as laws. For instance the Food and Saftey Inspection Service, requires a different color ink than black for their certificates and audits to be valid. Illinois has a very detailed list of what is acceptable for an audit and for records.
That said a signature may be deemed valid by a court even if it is in the wrong color ink, why bother to go to all the trouble of a court battle when you can just do it right to begin with. For instance, I can sign with an “X” but if the signature is disputed and it goes before a court, I better come up with a convincing reason to that judge why I chose an “X” and not my signature.
So why not just save the time and hassle.
Combine the common insistence on blue or black ink on documents that will be scanned with the practice of using red ink for corrections and negative amounts and I can see how such ideas get cemented.
In any case, while I’ve heard it elsewhere, the real memorable instance was a story I heard watching Behind the Music about Creed*. Scott Stapp wanted to sign their first contract in blood, but only one other band member joined him in doing so. Then Mark Tremonti, one of the two who didn’t, says, “The contract comes back because anything written in red is void so it was all for nothing, man it was pretty funny.” With that phrasing, it’s anything in red, not just a signature, but there is no citation, given it’s Behind the Music.
After a cursory search, I found some reasons red ink should be avoided other than “the law says.” Some optical scanners use a red light. Many institutions like to reserve red ink for corrections and notes. Red ink often can be less than permanent. Some people are superstitious enough about the signing-in-blood thing that a red ink signature is teh evil.
*: I have no idea why I was watching Behind the Music about Creed. I don’t like Behind the Music and I hate Creed.
People are often discouraged from using red or green ink, for similar reasons to the above. If you have to photocopy or fax the document, many reds or greens do not show clearly - sometimes they vanish completely. If you use a very pale blue colour*, or the same applies. So, avoid using freaky ink when signing serious documents.
*(or indeed “color” if you are a merkin and can’t spell correctly.)
Note that the reverse applies if you want to use a highlighter pen to mark text (or the highlighter function on Word etc.).
Any shade other than yellow or orange will blot out part of the text when you photocopy or fax it. Yet huge numbers of people insist on using green, red or blue highlights. Stupid really.
I was told by my lawyer when I closed on my house (and signing many documents) the the State of New Jersey required its documents to be signed in black ink. I did not ask why.
This isn’t quite the same thing as signing a document, if, in fact, these requirements obtain. It would be the first I’d heard of them and we live in the same state. I have no experience with the FSIS, so perhaps it’s the case. Likewise with the NJ documents. There is an outside possibility that the demands of scanning equipment or the like may require completing documents in specific colors; however, if you think a conveyance of real property will be reversed because you filled out the documents in blue ink, you are mistaken. Rather, the documents will come back for you to redo them in the commanded color and you will likely be assessed some sort of late filing fee or the like, but the legal effect will not be undone.
Well, I don’t think anyone goes to court to “quiet title,” so to speak, over signature colors, so I don’t understand what you mean when you prophesy court battles and “do[ing] it right to begin with,” because as I’ve taken great pains to show, an “X” or a thumbprint or a typewritten “/s/ Kimmy Gibbler” is a perfectly valid signature if made or adopted with the present intent to authenticate the instrument. And this goes to your last sentence, you do not have to “come up with a convincing reason to that judge why [you] chose an ‘X.’” If you have authority, binding or persuasive, or evidence that indicates this, do please share.
I think I address this point in my first post. We agree, although we get here via two very different routes: mine is informed by the law while yours is idle speculation that happily, if also completely accidentally, leads you to a correct conclusion.
I know that many, if not all, county recording offices have very specific requirements for filing a doucment in the public record, and they’re all different*. The first page of a contract to be recorded has to have a minumum of 1" margin on the sides and bottom, with a 3.5" margin at the top, and the contract must be signed in blue ink; that sort of thing.
*Hyperbole. The point is, if you want to record it in X county, you must follow X county’s instructions to a T, or forget it.
Here are the requirements for Cook County, Illinois:
As you can see, nothing about ink color. And moreover, as I mentioned, the penalty for flouting the rules is not “the house was never actually sold!” but rather “pay us more money.”
This link identifies similar requirements for Champaign County, Illinois. It does require that “[t]he document must be written, printed or typed in black ink.”
As it turns out, the two counties have similar requirements because they are controlled by Illinois statute, viz. 55 ILCS 5/3-5018. In particular, it provides “(2) The document shall be legibly printed in black ink, by hand, type, or computer. Signatures and dates may be in contrasting colors if they will reproduce clearly.” (Emphasis added)
I will note that the act also provides that unless the additional fee is paid for non-conforming documents, those documents will not be recorded. This does have a legal effect when it comes to multiple mortgages (and multiple sales, as bar candidates will recall) where priority and notice do matter and is established by recording.
Maybe in 10 years we’ll just spit on documents and have DNA scanners verify it.