Posted by Leon_CO on 2/13/09 1:28pm
Msg #277430
Notary certificate wording
This is the wording on one of the certificates for a closing I had today:
-----------------------------------------------------
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this ____ day of ____, 20___. I further certify that I have personally watched the above named person(s) sign the name(s) on the signature line and I have obtained sufficient identification to have knowledge that, in fact, the above signature(s) belong to the party named.
_____________________________________
Notary Public
Affix notary seal and Expiration Date
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already took care of the matter. But what is wrong with the way the certificate is worded?
| Reply by BEEJ on 2/13/09 1:41pm
Msg #277431
name of person needs to be spelled out and should be personally appeared not "watched."
| Reply by BEEJ on 2/13/09 3:45pm
Msg #277441
Re: Notary certificate wording & more n/m
| Reply by Sandra Clark on 2/13/09 2:17pm
Msg #277435
Just about everything
| Reply by jba/fl on 2/13/09 4:33pm
Msg #277449
Please enlighten us w/CO method. Answer: Depends on state. n/m
| Reply by JanetLA on 2/13/09 5:14pm
Msg #277452
Nothing wrong for Louisiana... n/m
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/13/09 5:17pm
Msg #277454
I would strike everything after the first sentence. I don't certify anything - my job is to properly ID them and take their oath, period. First sentence complies with NY law, so I'm done at that point.
| Reply by Leon_CO on 2/13/09 5:19pm
Msg #277455
BINGO!
>> I would strike everything after the first sentence. <<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right. From that point on, it's asking the notary to notarize their own signature.
Give that man a cigar!
| Reply by sue_pa on 2/13/09 7:35pm
Msg #277465
maybe BINGO in CO but not in PA
I can certify or what so many call 'notarizing our own signature'.
| Reply by PAW on 2/13/09 7:36pm
Msg #277466
How do you figure that?
>>> "... it's asking the notary to notarize their own signature."<<<
According to our procedures manual, those are the exact steps we must do in order to notarize the signature of the affiant. So there isn't anything in that statement that is contrary to the act, which is the giving of the oath. The jurat is simply the certification by the notary that the act was completed, which includes the certification by the notary that he/she witnessed the signing and the signature is that of the person identified by some form of identification. In FL, we would have to add what form of ID was used. Other than that, nothing really wrong with the jurat.
Our certificates must contain certain words and phrases, but it really can have as much verbiage as we so desire, as long as the certificate remains compliant with our statutes.
| Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 2/13/09 8:16pm
Msg #277470
I agree, plus...
A Notary is an impartial witness to do a signed transaction - so how can you "witness" your own signature? It doesn't even make sense!
This wording is similar to what you find on a Verification of ID form in a loan pkg. The notary fills out the ID information and signs as a Signing Agent or Notary, but can not "notarize" the notary's signature.
| Reply by sue_pa on 2/13/09 8:45pm
Msg #277473
Re: I agree, plus...
Barbara, I can type on a piece of paper ...
I, PA Notary, certify that BarbaraL_CA is the smartest, best looking notary in the state of California. ...
I then sign and stamp. I am not 'notarizing my own signature' - I am "certifying", which is allowed in PA.
| Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 2/14/09 5:18pm
Msg #277576
lol - thanks for the compliment Sue :) n/m
| Reply by jba/fl on 2/13/09 9:26pm
Msg #277475
Re: I agree, plus...
Every state has its own laws as to what is allowed and or necessary. This is a reason that one cannot use a blanket statement to cover any situation.
Reminds me of Bromeliads for Dummies
which says as its basic premise, that 95% of the time you will be correct in identifying the plant but there is 5% that will just not qualify for one, two, three variations. But, 95% of the time you will be close and/or correct.
If one applies this 95% rule here, then 2.5 states (5% of 50 is the figure I am using, although I have heard there are 57 states) will have pretty much the same general rules, similarities and so on. But those 2.5 states just allow all kinds of things that the other 47.5 don't allow. And of those 47.5 there are enough similarities to qualify them for the same family, but not enough in some cases that a new family has need to be introduced.
So there is no BINGO! on this topic. The original poster knows many states are the same; he made the mistake of assuming all had this nuance.
Got to remember: mostly, usually, with exceptions.
I have seen 3 different Verification of ID forms: 1 with no signature or initials, 1 with signature line and and lastly 1 with initials line. Again, these forms would be treated differently, depending on ones state laws. I can tell you what FL allows and their rule, but if you are not from Fl and your state says something different, then you must follow your state's rulings/laws. Furthermore, me telling anyone from another state anything allowed in FL is of no value to them.
Ca must be one of the 5%, FL is too. I don't know the other .5% state, well, except PA. Maybe Notary for Dummies is 10%.
| Reply by parkerc/ME on 2/14/09 7:25am
Msg #277513
Re: How do you figure that?
I agree with Paul on this. Consider that the "shorthand" and generally nationally acceptable version of a jurat is "Sworn to and subscribed before me..." If you were to do the "longhand" version as to what was actually done, you'd say something to the effect that ..."I certify that this peron, who I verified against their state-acceptable ID was actually the same person, physically stood before me, took an oath from me and swore to the truthfulness of this affidavit, and I watched this person sign this affidavit attesting to that truthfulness." Now that's a very detailed jurat/oath/affirmation, but it does detail what was actually done by the notary. So, IMHO, I don't see anything in that jurat that contradicts the understanding of what is incorporated in the short jurat. However, that said, if it really makes you uncomfortable, go ahead and line through all but the first line. Makes no difference, one way or the other, IMO.. . it's all 6 of one or half dozen of another.
| Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/14/09 12:42pm
Msg #277556
Re: BINGO!
I didn't say anything about notarizing my own signature, I said that I would strike everything after the first sentence. It's fluff and not needed in NY. I also don't care if it is required by another state, because my feet are on NY soil when I notarize. All my jurat needs to say is "Sworn and subscribed to before me on <date>".
| Reply by jba/fl on 2/13/09 8:59pm
Msg #277474
Of course you certify when you notarize...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/certify
Main Entry: cer·ti·fy
Pronunciation: \ˈsər-tə-ˌfî\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cer·ti·fied; cer·ti·fy·ing
Etymology: Middle English certifien, from Anglo-French certefier, from Late Latin certificare, from Latin certus certain — more at certain
Date: 14th century
1: to attest authoritatively: as a: confirm b: to present in formal communication c: to attest as being true or as represented or as meeting a standard d: to attest officially to the insanity of
2: to inform with certainty : assure
3: to guarantee (a personal check) as to signature and amount by so indicating on the face
4: to recognize as having met special qualifications (as of a governmental agency or professional board) within a field <agencies that certify teachers>
— cer·ti·fi·er \-ˌfî(-ə r\ noun
Synonyms CERTIFY, ATTEST, WITNESS, VOUCH mean to testify to the truth or genuineness of something. certify usually applies to a written statement, especially one carrying a signature or seal <certified that the candidate had met all requirements>. attest applies to oral or written testimony usually from experts or witnesses <attested to the authenticity of the document>. witness applies to the subscribing of one's own name to a document as evidence of its genuineness <witnessed the signing of the will>. vouch applies to one who testifies as a competent authority or a reliable person <willing to vouch for her integrity>.
synonyms see in addition approve
****Note synonyms: attest, witness
Standing w/PAW on this one. How on earth can you be certifying, acknowledging, witnessing your own signature on this form? You are stating they signed, whoever is named in the blank. In FL we have to add type of id presented in addition. You are certifying no matter what word is used.
| Reply by MichiganAl on 2/13/09 10:15pm
Msg #277481
Another erroneous lesson
Definition of a jurat according to the Michigan Notary Public Act:
(a) "Jurat" means a CERTIFICATION by a notary public that a signer, whose identity is personally known to the notary public or proven on the basis of satisfactory evidence, has made in the presence of the notary public a voluntary signature and taken an oath or affirmation vouching for the truthfulness of the signed record.
Got that teacher? We certify that we witnessed them sign and identified them properly. The wording is perfectly acceptable in Michigan.
Sorry, no BINGO for you.
| Reply by Leon_CO on 2/14/09 1:06am
Msg #277496
How do you figure?
If the certificate does not comply with the notary laws of your state, then you can't use it.
Mike noted the same thing. That is why I said 'BINGO'.
| Reply by Leon_CO on 2/14/09 1:18am
Msg #277497
Something else
The notary can certify that the signer has done something, but how can you as the notary cerify that YOU have done something?
"I further certify that I have personally ..."
After all, who is under oath -- the notary or the signer?
| Reply by MichiganAl on 2/14/09 2:16am
Msg #277501
Good grief, are you really this dense?
Do you honestly not get that there's two parts to this? One part where the SIGNER is under oath and vouching for their truthfulness, and one part where I'M CERTIFYING that I identified them and witnessed them sign. I'm not putting myself under oath or witnessing my own signature, I'm certifying that I did exactly what I was supposed to do for a jurat. They take the oath, I certify that I did my part. How hard is that to understand? Again, it's straight out of the Michigan Notary Act. "Jurat" means a CERTIFICATION by a notary public that a signer has been identified and signed in front of me AND that THEY'VE taken an oath vouching for the truthfulness of the signed record. It's the very definition of a jurat in Michigan and clearly the Michigan Secretary of State thinks I can certify to something I've done (maybe you should blame Uncle Richard?).
| Reply by Leon_CO on 2/14/09 3:40am
Msg #277504
Re: Good grief ...
MichiganAl, is there any reason why you can't respond without resorting to insults?
| Reply by jba/fl on 2/14/09 7:46am
Msg #277521
When someone continually beats a dead horse
others lose a bit of patience. You blogging here continually opens yourself up to correction. It is a two way street - and sometimes the teacher is wrong. Accept it. Sometimes, the teacher is wrong.
Bingo!
| Reply by MichiganAl on 2/14/09 10:53am
Msg #277546
Re: Good grief ...
I don't know, is there any reason that you can't seem to get it through your head when you're giving out absolutely incorrect information? Is there any reason that, despite being told by numerous people, you can't understand that this isn't your personal blog and you should take your daily educational lessons elsewhere (do you see even one other person doing this)? Is there any reason that you keep acting like THE industry expert with your constant lessons by Leon? You seem to expect people to respect your knowledge and experience in this industry, but don't respect the knowledge and experience of those who've been doing this much longer than you and know much more than you when they tell you you're mistaken. Instead you stubbornly and desperately cling to being right.
Why do I get testy? BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE DANGEROUS. You use this venue as a pulpit in an attempt to display your expertise, but seem to provide inaccurate information just as much as you provide correct information. The experienced NSAs have figured it out, but those who are relatively new might actually believe that you know what you're talking about and act upon your poor advice. It's them I worry about.
You remind me very much of someone else that used to post here, FlaMac. She had a wealth of wrong information, and gave it out like it was candy in her pocket. She knew more than even the most experienced, knowledgeable NSAs in the industry, stubbornly stood by her misinformation in the face of indisputable evidence, and used the forum to try to inflate her own standing. People figured her out, she was eventually banned from the forum, and despite claiming to be the busiest and wisest NSA on the planet, didn't last long before flunking out.
I don't doubt that you may be a good NSA, but you should not be doling out advice to anyone, and certainly not here.
| Reply by MW/VA on 2/15/09 7:50am
Msg #277592
Re: Good grief ...
This is very well said, but I doubt that Leon is going to "get it". I get very irritated by the almost daily personal blogs--and that's exactly what they are. They would stop if he didn't get anyone to take the bait. It's also about the need to be right, and it gets ugly when he's challenged. There was a discussion the other day that got abusive, and the board monitors had to delete some of it. This board is not a battleground to fight personality battles.
| Reply by jba/fl on 2/15/09 8:56am
Msg #277595
Re: Good grief ...Objection!
This is not a personal battleground. It pertains to correct information given vs. incorrect information. There is not 'one' way that covers all states, therefore, modifiers should be placed into the info given rather than blanket statements presented as factual for all concerned.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/18/09 3:21am
Msg #277868
Re: Good grief ...Objection!
Very good point, Julie! [Although this thread is now so far back that no one will probably read this...] When incorrect or misleading information is given, it can't be left alone because of the potential harm that could be done, as Al so aptly described.
What doesn't make sense to me is the statement about notarizing one's own signature. That wording wouldn't fly in CA, but we are, after all, the ones who are signing at the bottom of every certificate. (I assume that is true for the vast majority of the states, at least.) In fact, in CA now, every ack must include these words: "I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct." This is followed by our signature, of course.
IMHO, some of the most dangerous people in this world are those who are "often wrong; never in doubt..." FWIW.
| Reply by jba/fl on 2/18/09 8:21am
Msg #277889
JanetK/CA - many of us read linear so it will be read. n/m
| Reply by sue_pa on 2/14/09 7:23am
Msg #277511
Re: Something else
It's time to acknowledge that you are wrong for EVERY state - perhaps correct for CO but not everywhere.
I, PA Notary, further certify that I, PA Notary, have personally .... insert whatever you want ...
Not one person signs this form except me and I then stamp it. the notary is the one who is swearing to the facts.
| Reply by jba/fl on 2/14/09 7:38am
Msg #277518
Re: Something else
"I have personally watched the above named person(s) sign the name(s) on the signature line and I have obtained sufficient identification to have knowledge that, in fact, the above signature(s) belong to the party named."
Leon, can we acknowledge that this came from your original post? It is a cut and paste, so I will ack. this to be true.
Let's take this phrase by phrase:
I have personally watched the above named person(s) = I looked at them, I saw them
sign the names(s) on the signature line = they did something I saw in the place so named
belong to the party named. = it is theirs, not mine, the person(s) in front of me, the notary, who will now sign and stamp!
NO, NO, NO BINGO!
What you really need to do Leon is take your blog to people who don't know you're BSing. Most of us here understand differences and nuances.
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 2/14/09 2:22pm
Msg #277557
Nothing, in Oregon. As long as the certificate contains
the necessary elements (personal appearance, positive identification, oath/affirmation, freely/willingly signed before the notary), a notary may complete the certificate.
Further, the manual states" "So long as nothing in the certificate is false, and the necessary information is included, the notary public may complete the certifidate."
>>I further certify that I have personally watched the above named person(s) sign the name(s) on the signature line and I have obtained sufficient identification to have knowledge that, in fact, the above signature(s) belong to the party named.<<
Since this is extraneous, but is not false, I fail to see how it is "clearly incorrect" as defined under OR notarial law. At best, it is redundant, but makes somebody feel better.
I have no idea as to the legal consequence of the 'extra' language, (nor do I care,) but, in any event, it appears it would not nullify the certificate. Sometimes, people who generate documents try to make things "legaler." Personally, I think it's rather silly to certify I'm doing my job, but, as long as the required elements are in the language, and any extraneous language is not false, at least in my state (and apparently many others,) it's a rightful certificate.
|
|
