This is great

The same is true if you sign your name differently every single time or use random doodles or scrawl each time- a person can then place anything in a signature and claim it was you.

A general accepted but not codified legal view of signatures is that the signature be used consistently to be valid. This makes it easier to link to you and easier to prove it was you by analysis by a writing specialist if needed. Most “secure” transactions will require that you use the signature on your government identification because that identification is uniquely linked to your identity and on public record which eliminates most room for dispute and makes verification easier.

All of our writing changes over our lives- the first time you signed your name to paper as a child likely looks very different than when you are a teen or 50. Most states require periodic renewal or updates to identification- which generally requires a new signature be placed on record each time.

In the end- it is up to the other party in a contract if they will accept your signature. They aren’t required to- all contracts that require both parties feel satisfied to enter are optional. In the 21st century we have many tools besides signatures or handwriting analysis to prove you made an agreement- “multi factor identification” of sorts using things like credit/debit card purchases, various cameras in the environment, toll road vehicle transponders and on board vehicle data, your cell phones GPS tags, and of course emails and texts or call logs to paint a picture of events.

So it is much harder to get away with fraud in claiming one did or didn’t enter a contract than it was not even 100 years ago: provided that the parties involved are willing and able to use their resources to gather all the data together to present a case, but that generally requires the dispute be significant enough to warrant such extremes and usually isn’t necessary. It’s also potentially expensive and a pain in the butt- so it’s just generally better to make sure a signature is consistently used (with slight variation as is human to not make perfect copies always).

There is no “legal process” to changing your signature. For most things like credit/debit card receipts or checks- all that a bank is looking at is wether or not the signatures being left are consistent- and ESPECIALLY with credit/debit receipts there is much debate to if or how often they actually check unless there is a dispute. Checks often get more scrutiny- but consistency is again key.

So if you want to “change your signature”, getting a new ID or waiting until you need a new one is a solid step to being able to prove to people that your signature is valid. But you can change it in every day use simply by using whatever you want so long as people accept it or you can convince them to accept it.

Lastly- I am slightly suspicious of the story accompanying this text. Buying a home can be quite a process, and if you aren’t paying cash outright- even more so. It requires you prove bank accounts and show savings amounts, often multiple forms of validation such as utility bills or other legal documents establishing presence and identity

A mortgage requires notarization. Part of this practice is the sufficient satisfaction of identity and presence of the parties involved. So there is no legal requirement the signatures match as long as the transaction is witnessed and the signing parties can be identified.

Im just slightly doubtful the agent had any sort of trouble with the situation. Although it is entirely plausible this entire story is true in every detail- I just mention it because I have a signature that is not written in the Latin alphabet and often face questions or reactions even though that is the only signature I have ever had on any legal document or identification. It is uncommon that there is confusion on how to handle the situation however- but it’s possible.