Posted by Signing_Doc on 9/14/06 12:28am
Msg #145930

probably been answered but couldn't find it regarding DOT

On the Deed of Trust...Borrower is married woman as her sole and separate property. Borrower is the trustor under this Security Instrument. On the page I notarize, on the bottom, it states "...This instrument was acknowledge before me on (date) by (name of person) as (TYPE OF AUTHORITY, E.G. OFFICER, TRUSTEE ETC.) of (NAME OF PARTY ON BEHALF OF WHOM INSTRUMENT WAS EXECUTED.)..."

Now the question is...what the heck goes in the area pertaining to the capitalized area? The date (obvious)...by (obvious)...as (this is the part I'm not sure of...do I leave it blank...ask the LO or what?)... Thanks in advance.

"Doc"

Reply by Ernest__CT on 9/14/06 12:38am
Msg #145931

Doc, I'm confused!

She's the TRUSTOR?! Huh? Not a trustEE?

Reply by Signing_Doc on 9/14/06 12:43am
Msg #145932

Re: Doc, I'm confused!

she's neither...this is just the wording on the DOT...she is a married woman as sole owner of the property...the wording is just what is on the DOT...that's why I'm confused too...

Reply by Signing_Doc on 9/14/06 12:52am
Msg #145934

The wording "Borrower is the Trustor" is on the DOT n/m

Reply by Ernest__CT on 9/14/06 12:53am
Msg #145935

(sigh) Then whoever drew up the DOT ...

... was also confused.

Not giving legal advice here, of course! If she is the sole owner, then her capacity is sole owner of the aforementioned property, isn't it?

It sounds like the drawer-up of the DOT used a template that was intended for possible use by a trustee and forgot to remove the trustee wording.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a male signer with "... in her capacity as ..." or a female signer with "... by his ...".

Reply by Signing_Doc on 9/14/06 12:58am
Msg #145936

f she is the sole owner, then her capacity is sole owner

exac-a-tick-ly....therefore my dilema...do I leave it blank...or put in the capacity area "sole owner"...or just ask the Escrow Officer...this is my first outing with this TC and want to make a good impression. TIA

"Doc"

Reply by Ernest__CT on 9/14/06 1:02am
Msg #145938

I'd ask the Escrow Officer.

Said Officer may not have seen the doc in question and might be happy to know about the wording.

If it were I, I'd fax the doc with a note so that it gets seen foist ting in the a.m.

The answer is "None. I'll just sit here in the dark." You know the question?

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/14/06 1:01am
Msg #145937

The acknowledgement wording is wrong for California. You can not notarize a capacity. Cross out the acknowledgement wording and write in "See attached CA All Purpose Acknowledgement" and attach an All Purpose Ack. There are All Purpose Acks that have extra "stuff" underneath the acknowledgement where you can specify Trustor, Trustee, Officer of Corp. etc... If you don't have one like this I can email you one.

Reply by Signing_Doc on 9/14/06 1:10am
Msg #145941

Re: probably been answered but couldn't find it regarding DO

thanks...but I'm in Nevada. However, I'll bring my handy-dandy all purpose acknowledgement just in case....good on you BarbaraL_CA

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 9/14/06 1:11am
Msg #145943

Sorry - forgot you were in NV - n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 9/14/06 1:12am
Msg #145944

Doc, every once in a while I see a DOT where it has individual wording on one page, trustee wording on another, and your supposed to chose the one that applies. As long as you're sure that there's not correct wording elsewhere, I'd agree with Ernest. Someone added the wrong wording. I'd call them, especially since it's the first time working for them and you want to do it right. But I'd guess you'll just end up adding a loose cert.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 9/14/06 1:18am
Msg #145948

A loose cert would work also, but ...

... I'd prefer to have the company know that I pay attention to detail and don't make such assumptions if I can contact them instead. Just my two pennies....

Reply by Signing_Doc on 9/14/06 1:29am
Msg #145949

Stop...you're both right...I not only sent a fax advising my

dilemma and solution, but I will be showing up in the morning with a loose All Purpose acknowledgment in my hot little hand. In my fax, I cited Nevada Law regarding the wording needed for acting in a representative capacity...and the wording for an individual acknowledgment. This way, I have shown that I have researched the law...came up with a solution...and will be expecting to execute that assumption in the morning. So...thanks for all your help...BYLH(s)...
Good night...sleep tight...and may the good gnus be yours....

3's and I'm clear good buddy...

Reply by Ernest__CT on 9/14/06 1:40am
Msg #145951

73s and 88s to the pretty one! TTFN! SK! n/m

Reply by MichiganAl on 9/14/06 1:33am
Msg #145950

Isn't that exactly what I said? n/m