Posted by Robert/FL on 12/21/09 2:32pm
Msg #315223

Hybrid certificates

This has come up before but I would like to start a thread to discuss hybrid certificates, i.e. certificates like "Sworn to, subscribed, and acknowledged before me" that combine both an oath and an acknowledgment.

First of all, I hate these and will not notarize one... I will ask the signer to either choose one or the other or let me do two separate certificates - one jurat and one acknowledgment. Combining both acts is not *authorized* by Florida law but isn't necessarily prohibited either. Of course, the Governor's office won't give me an answer one way or the other.

I'd like to hear others opinions on these and whether or not they would be willing to notarize one.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/21/09 2:36pm
Msg #315225

You must follow your state's laws. n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 12/21/09 2:50pm
Msg #315228

FL laws are silent on the matter. n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/09 3:19pm
Msg #315231

Yes, I will.

As long as it has the normal elements of a Texas ack *and* jurat, you betcha. (The elements are very short, to the point for Tx.) As you said, nothing prohibits it.

Jurat:
Sworn to and subscribed before me on the __________ day of
_______________, (year), by (name of signer).

Short Ack:
This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by (name or names
of person or persons acknowledging).

Reply by dickb/wi on 12/21/09 5:16pm
Msg #315259

ya betch, by golly, and so will i............ n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/21/09 7:18pm
Msg #315272

Yep...there are still a few old lawyers out there who

draft what they draft. If it covers the right elements of the jurat and ack, I'll do it. Even our commissioning office of the state doesn't argue with what a lawyer has prepared.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/21/09 6:00pm
Msg #315264

If the language within the document says, "John Doe, being duly sworn, on oath deposes and states that:..." I will use a jurat since I would be required to give an oath. Otherwise, I'd ask the client to chose. I would not do two. The only time I'd complete an acknowledgment AND jurat for the same document is if there were separate jurat and acknowledgment wording - not hybrid wording.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/22/09 1:54am
Msg #315344

I don't have a problem doing both (although I certainly prefer not to). They serve separate purposes and I'm not aware of it being written anywhere in the CA Handbook that we can't do both. I DO make sure that each loose cert. has language that connects it exclusively to the document in question. But I run into documents fairly routinely that request both.

Over the weekend I had one with the "Subscribed and sworn and acknowledged before me.." language. My client was a ss, tc was unreachable and she didn't want to make a decision, so I had no choice but to do both. Tonight I had one that had both jurat and ack verbiage (neither correct for CA, naturally) listed separately on the same page. That seemed to me to be a pretty clear sign that they wanted both. If that's what they want, that's what I give them.

Reply by Robert/FL on 12/22/09 6:30am
Msg #315350

I would not mind completing two *separate* certificates, although IMO it is never needed - one or the other should suffice - but I feel uncomfortable with combining both acts in one certificate. Florida law used to add the phrase "and who did / did not take an oath" to the end of our acknowledgments, but I believe the oath in that case was, "Do you swear you have signed this document willingly for the purposes therein expressed?", rather than an oath that the contents of the document are correct as in a jurat.

I have found that many documents containing these "hybrid" certificates should actually require a jurat only, i.e. affidavits, etc.