Posted by al/az on 2/27/09 11:46am
Msg #278914

Can you do a Jurat and Acknowledgment on the same doc?

This is for a California property. It has them signing it once but a Jurat and separate Acknowledgment to be completed. If you can do both would you stamp it twice or just once? I've tried looking this up on the web but haven't found anything in regards to this.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 2/27/09 11:56am
Msg #278918

I have done both a Jurat and Acknowledgment on the same doc. I signed and "stamped" it twice, once for each notarial act.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 2/27/09 11:59am
Msg #278920

I ditto Teresa.

We are speaking of Florida, but I have done and seen many docs with both blocks on a doc.
??????????
I must be related to Dr. Seuss.
That sounded like it came from a goose.

Reply by GWest on 2/27/09 12:01pm
Msg #278922

Yes for CA Property, Stamp Twice One for Each n/m

Reply by PAW on 2/27/09 12:26pm
Msg #278928

Since a jurat and an acknowledgment serve different purposes

... you would need to complete two separate notarial acts. Part of a notarial act is the signing and sealing (stamping) the notarial certificate. With two certificates, there would be two acts and thus two notary signatures and two notary stamps.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 2/27/09 12:31pm
Msg #278930

Exactly! If I see the wording for both acts on a document

I complete both of them.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/27/09 12:31pm
Msg #278931

Re: Since a jurat and an acknowledgment serve different purposes

Also, be aware that some companies are using "hybrid" certificates, where the wording is
"sworn to, subscribed and acknowledged". I have no idea why these companies are doing this as a certificate needs to be one or the other, not both. If they want the doc to be sworn to, subscribed and acknowledged" then they need to put two certificates on the doc, a jurat and an acknowledgment.

I can't tell you how many notaries are accepting those hybrid certificates, but they are not acceptible.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 2/27/09 12:35pm
Msg #278934

Re: Since a jurat and an acknowledgment serve different purposes

I think some companies do not know what they need, so they combine it all into one.

When I see these, I call the TC and ask them which act they need then make the appropriate changes to the certificate. If the answer is "both", I modify the hybrid so it covers one act then add a second certificate to cover the second act.

Reply by Gary_CA on 2/27/09 4:07pm
Msg #278968

Hmmm...Sylvia, I'm no expert...

but Hybrid Certs were specifically covered in my class. We were told they're legit, but you can only charge once for them.

I don't know if something in FL law specifically prohibits them.

Of course in CA they're only legit for out of state, otherwise we have to use our exact approved wording. (There is no approved hybrid).

I actually like CA's strict cert requirements...makes it easy on me. If it's not exactly, precisely a CA approved ACK, I just pull one out of my brief case. If it's not exactly precisely a CA jurat, I just cross it out and hit the page with my jurat stamp. Nothing to think about.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 2/27/09 4:27pm
Msg #278969

Speaking of Hybrid Certs...

...can you believe Manny dissed the Codgers over their $45 mil 2 year offer? What's going through this guy's mind? Oh yeah...he's Manny Ramirez.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/27/09 4:46pm
Msg #278971

Re: Hmmm...Sylvia, I'm no expert...

There is no approved hybrid in Florida either

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/27/09 5:56pm
Msg #278980

Re: Hmmm...Sylvia, I'm no expert...

"We were told they're legit, but you can only charge once for them."

And did they tell you in which state it would be "legit"? Just because a certificate is to be filed in another state doesn't mean we (i.e. CA notaries) can automatically accept what is provided. If we KNOW it to be verbiage that is REQUIRED by another state and it doesn't conflict with any CA restrictions (e.g. capacity), only then can we use it. Otherwise, imo, we should always default to the verbiage currently required in CA. And in this case, that would be two certificates. I think this is a common misperception - again, in my opinion.

As for the fees, since we charge per signature and not per certificate, it does make sense that we only charge once. (BTW, what class did you take?)

Reply by Gary_CA on 2/27/09 7:44pm
Msg #278987

I think I disagree, a little.

I took my class from a little outfit "Duane Gomer" I knew the instructor and it's interesting, they had to have their training manual approved and he assures me the SOS made them change some things...

so whatever you get in an approved class, it's not gospel (like the manual) but it's not just rumor either... FWIW. There was a specific brief section on the ack/jurat and he did mention that it's one act one fee. After all, it's one sig too.


The part I disagree about... I don't think we need to be experts in what's acceptable in each of the 50 states. That's an awful strict standard. We must know that it doesn't conflict with CA restrictions (i.e. capacity)... on this we agree.

If an Ohio TC sends me a package with a hybrid act, I assume that THEY are experts in OH law, not me. If it looks reasonably compliant I'll stamp it.

In practice, when I get a cert that's a little weird I do "default to the verbiage currently required in CA." that's an easy out.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/27/09 7:50pm
Msg #278989

Re: I think I disagree, a little.

"If an Ohio TC sends me a package with a hybrid act, I assume that THEY are experts in OH law, not me. If it looks reasonably compliant I'll stamp it."

Even if it is for CA property???
Always adhere to YOUR state's notary laws and you can't go wrong

FWIW the NNA's classes are "approved" classes, and we know how wrong they can be.

Reply by jba/fl on 2/27/09 9:55pm
Msg #279007

Re: I think I disagree, a little.

I have had several TC's in Florida lately that don't seem to understand just what is required on a notary certificate. There are certain elements that must be included, yet I get them all the time very abbreviated, barely containing the borrower's name. So just because it is a TC sending these things out, don't assume they know what they are doing. Follow your state's laws, period.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/27/09 8:07pm
Msg #278991

Re: I think I disagree, a little.

Here's the section directly from the Handbook:

"A notary public may complete a certificate of acknowledgment REQUIRED in another state or jurisdiction of the United States on documents to be filed in that other state or jurisdiction, provided the form does not require the notary public to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law." [CAPS are mine for emphasis.]

Your statement:
"If an Ohio TC sends me a package with a hybrid act, I assume that THEY are experts in OH law, not me. If it looks reasonably compliant I'll stamp it."

That *may* be true IF you're dealing with a local title company operating in it's own state. However, if you're dealing with a national title company or lender that has standard forms across the board, they may be in a different state from you, and the property in a third state altogether. For example, I couldn't begin to count how many times I've seen packages with more than three different versions of notary verbiage. (And I don't just mean ack vs. jurat.) How can you know that "reasonably compliant" is good enough in that jurisdiction? I would agree that it would be a mighty difficult thing to be sure about.

Even if we're just talking about recordables, I've also often seen packages with a DOT prepared by a CA title co that didn't have the correct verbiage for our own state. So it seems to me to be a bit of a stretch to ASSUME that what is provided in a package is always that which is "required" by that state. Furthermore, you're right that we don't need to be experts in the notary verbiage for all 50 states. BUT if we're uncertain, we just need to know what is required in our own state and substitute the appropriate certificate.

I'm simply suggesting that you always take that "easy out" unless you're certain, not if it just seems to be a little wierd. We all know what they say about people who "assume"...

Reply by jba/fl on 2/27/09 9:58pm
Msg #279008

Well, gosh, Janet - I replied before reading your post -

but look at the similarities! Astounding! LOL

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/28/09 5:10pm
Msg #279095

Re: Well, gosh, Janet - I replied before reading your post -

Must be true, then! Great minds, as they say... (Except you did a much better job of getting to the point!

Coincidentally, I had a package from another state today with instructions that went to great lengths to quote the CA paragraph that I posted above. What was great was that they specified that the provided verbiage WAS exactly what was required there and that we should use that, rather than add our own certificate. Took all the guesswork out of it. [How nice is that?!] I still had to correct the one jurat in the package, because CA doesn't allow any exceptions to that wording - but it wasn't on a recordable document. This is from a county that has very specific requirements that aren't met by some CA ack certs.

Reply by Shelly_FL on 2/27/09 10:12pm
Msg #279009

Thank you Sylvia for pointing this out...

I can't tell you how many times I've had to call to find out which one they want and then wait for them to find someone who knows how to answer the question. Not any more, they will get both from now on!

As for what needs to be in a FL certificate, can you count to NINE? Elements that is?

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 2/28/09 8:29am
Msg #279045

Re: Thank you Sylvia for pointing this out...

Shelly
If you look at the beginning of the document, it may say "personally appeared _______ upon being duly sworn"
In that case I would cross out the "and acknowledged" and just leave sworn and subscribed"

Nice to see you posting. I wish I had some signings in your area, I enjoyed working with you.