Posted by Linda Juenger on 7/6/11 10:31pm
Msg #388826

Is there any state that the following notorial wording is

acceptable?

In Witness Whereof, the Affiant has affixed his/her signature(s) and seal(s) this____ day
of______________,________.

Notary signature_____________________
My commission expires________________

Just wondering.

Reply by HisHughness on 7/6/11 11:25pm
Msg #388829

I would accept that in Texas.

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/7/11 12:10am
Msg #388831

I don't have a problem with it for Michigan.

Reply by desktopfull on 7/7/11 3:52am
Msg #388834

Don't you need to add the venue? n/m

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 5:26am
Msg #388836

That wording accomplishes nothing

It does not mention an oath or an acknowledgment. Unless you are in a state that allows notaries to merely witness signatures, there has to be verbiage to indicate that a notarial act was performed. So, no, I would say that this wording is not acceptable in *most* states.

I would replace it with a state compliant acknowledgment or jurat.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/7/11 5:51am
Msg #388838

IMO, it clearly does indicate a jurat

"In witness thereof" indicates they signed, and "Affiant" indicates an affirmation.

Legal definition:
affiant n. a person who signs an affidavit and swears to its truth

I'd be good with it, too.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 5:54am
Msg #388839

Way too vague for a jurat

Nowhere in that certificate does it indicate that the notary administered an oath. The point of a notarial certificate is to clearly document the notarial act. This wording usually appears at the end of documents prior to the signature of the client, but is not used for notarizations. I would hope that anyone wanting to use this wording run it by their SOS... I have a feeling that this wording is unacceptable in most states. It is definitely no good in Florida.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/7/11 6:41am
Msg #388844

"The Affiant" isn't vague

MI doesn't prescribe cert verbiage, merely offers an example - don't know what FL does.

Still, "The Affiant" makes this clear. An Affiant IS a person who has affirmed the truth of what they've signed in front of the notary.

Remember, a jurat does not require an "oath", it requires an oath OR an affirmation.

Reply by jba/fl on 7/7/11 6:53am
Msg #388847

Re: "The Affiant" isn't vague

Florida offers examples, from streamlined to elaborate, but as long as the nine essentials are contained, we are good whether jurat or ack.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 9:32am
Msg #388869

An "Affiant" is simply a person signing an affidavit.

Unless there are words that indicate that an oath or affirmation is being taken, this certificate does not qualify as a jurat - no way, no how. Claiming that the use of the word "Affiant" implies a proper oath by a notary is a stretch.

JMHO.

Reply by jba/fl on 7/7/11 9:40am
Msg #388870

An affiant is someone who is sworn in - so why not? Agree w

Renee on this.

But in all truthfulness and actuality, I would swap for one of mine in practice. I just like mine more better.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 7/7/11 9:52am
Msg #388873

More better????

Jules!!!

THWAP!!! Wet noodle for the grammar offense (jk)

Reply by jba/fl on 7/7/11 10:39am
Msg #388891

ROFLMAO! I knew we needed a laugh here! LOL n/m

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 7/7/11 1:59pm
Msg #388941

Re: More better????

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 10:28am
Msg #388883

Re: An affiant is someone who is sworn in - so why not? Agree w

Using the word "Affiant" only describes the capacity in which the signer is signing the document. Even if you use the word "Affiant" - which MAY indicate that the signer was sworn - unless there is other wording in the document such as "Before me personally appeared John Doe, who being duly sworn, says", the mere use of the word Affiant does not establish that a notary swore the person in. The person who administers the oath is the same person who signs the jurat, yes? So unless there is a description as to who administered the oath, the affidavit is insufficient IMO.

If I were attorney it would be very easy to challenge this one in court.

Notarial wording is important. Improper wording CAN invalidate the document. If no notarization was performed, then the document isn't entitled to be recorded, and if the document isn't entitled to be recorded then it does not provide constructive notice and therefore does not have the same legal effect as a properly notarized instrument would. Certain problems in wording can invalidate a notarization.

To the OP - Play it safe. Attach your own certificate.

MHO - as a notary educator and a paralegal - not as an attorney.

Reply by NJDiva on 7/7/11 10:31am
Msg #388886

Very nicely put...thank you Robert. n/m

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 5:56am
Msg #388840

And "In Witness Whereof"' does not mean that they signed,

It essentially means "therefore" or "thereupon".

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 7/7/11 6:36am
Msg #388843

depends on who defines it?

Oxford Dictionary:

used to refer to confirmation or evidence given by signature or under oath:
in witness thereof, the parties sign this document

Robert, I am not dogging you, just so you 'get' me in the right context. I consider you one of the better 'debate' partners because you go at things much the same as I do - looking for facts, sources, definitives.

Reply by NJDiva on 7/7/11 10:19am
Msg #388877

Robert, you're too funny...

You talk in such absolutes...lol...when in the WORLD are you graduating from law school?...or WHO in the world trained you? I need to learn from that very wise, master interpreter of the law.

I think we need to get the OPINION of the interpretation of one of our very wise master lawyers. Hugh, you stated that it was acceptable to you...would you care to elaborate? lmao Please, please cross examine (oops, I mean debate...lmao)

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 10:24am
Msg #388879

Re: Robert, you're too funny...

>>>WORLD are you graduating from law school?...<<<

In June 2015.

>>>WHO in the world trained you?<<<

Three Florida attorneys.

Reply by NJDiva on 7/7/11 10:27am
Msg #388881

Robert, you're too funny...ooooh, okay...

do paralegals always talk in absolutes?

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 10:30am
Msg #388884

When they know what they are talking about, yes.

I can definitely say, uneqivocably, that this certificate would not constitute a valid notarization in the State of Florida. And I say this as a state-approved notary educator and as someone who has been an expert witness on notary law in five court cases.

Reply by NJDiva on 7/7/11 10:32am
Msg #388887

lol...okey dokey then... n/m

Reply by NJDiva on 7/7/11 10:43am
Msg #388894

Wait, five court cases? I asked a couple months ago if

anyone ever had to go to court regarding notarization issues (or maybe not that particular verbiage) but I would love to know what brought about having to serve

"as someone who has been an expert witness on notary law in five court cases."

I say this because I would love to know how often notarization's are brought into question and what would initiate such actions.

I'm going to start a new thread. I always wondered why it would be brought into court.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/7/11 10:51am
Msg #388897

With the rampant foreclosure fraud in Florida, notaries

are often questioned. The majority of my expert witness work has been involving improperly notarized foreclosure documents (wording was incorrect, signer didn't personally appear, official signature wasn't used, etc.). But I've also done a few unrelated to foreclosures.

There are only 17 notary educators in Florida. 15 of them don't hold regularly-scheduled live classes, and I am one of the other 2 that holds live classes. This fact alone gives me credibility as an expert, but I've also written for the American Association of Notaries and I've written my own handbook for Florida notaries. My book has been used in court as well.

Reply by MichiganAl on 7/8/11 12:50am
Msg #389014

No, but know-it-alls do. n/m

Reply by parkerc/ME on 7/7/11 8:15am
Msg #388853

Re: That wording accomplishes nothing

Don't know whether it would actually fly here, but I wouldn't accept it because it does not say either "swore on oath" or "acknowledged", so I'd cross out and attach my own.

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 8:40am
Msg #388854

Re: That wording accomplishes nothing

It would not be close to what Illinois requires at a minimum

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 8:43am
Msg #388855

Re: That wording accomplishes nothing

Verification upon oath or affirmation
(in an individual capacity)


State of Illinois
County of ___________________.

Signed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me on _________________________(date)

By (Print)¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬______________________________(name of person making statement).


Sign name______________________________


(seal)

________________________
Signature of notary public






Title of Document ________________________________________________

Date of Document_________________________ No. of Pages including this document.

Reply by JandB on 7/7/11 10:57am
Msg #388899

Re: That wording accomplishes nothing

I would accept it and move on. I just went back to review the PA handbook and find no definitive answer. Acknowledgment and Jurat forms are suggested in the handbook but nothing is said about notarizing a document that "accomplishes nothing." I see it as lender's problem. If they need to use the form for some legal reason and can't because the notarization is pointless than they need to address the problem with their attorneys. I am not an attorney and not qualified to choose which certificate I should add. In fact, I could get in trouble if I choose the wrong one.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/7/11 8:52am
Msg #388856

Not a complete cert in FL IMO n/m

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 8:57am
Msg #388858

which one are to referring to?

This is from the state of Illinois and acceptable!!

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 8:58am
Msg #388859

Re: which one are to referring to? n/m

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 8:58am
Msg #388860

Re: which one are you referring to? n/m

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 9:00am
Msg #388861

Sorry for the double post...not feeling well today n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/7/11 9:02am
Msg #388862

She asked if there was any state in which that

wording was acceptable - I'm responding to the OP - and though it may be acceptable in IL it's NOT a complete cert in FL...

And you'd better go back and read your handbook - pages 15-16 specifically - the cert in the OP does not comply with IL law... no venue, no "subscribed and sworn to" or "acknowledged before me"

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/ipub16.pdf

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/7/11 9:06am
Msg #388863

And in response to parker/me you stated

"It would not be close to what Illinois requires at a minimum"

?? - call me confused now..

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 9:08am
Msg #388864

Sorry Linda did not mean to confuse anyone I was

referring to the original post that started this string of replies.

Reply by jfs/IL on 7/7/11 9:13am
Msg #388866

This is a better copy of the Illinois Form that I use.

Verification upon oath or affirmation
(in an individual capacity)


State of Illinois

County of ___________________.


Signed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me on _________________________(date)


By (Print)______________________________(name of person making statement).

Sign name______________________________



(seal)


________________________
Signature of notary public







Title of Document ________________________________________________

Date of Document_________________________ No. of Pages including this document.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/7/11 9:20am
Msg #388868

Okay...got it Joe -

Curious though - why do you have the signers sign your notary certificate. Is that required? My understanding is the notary cert is the notary's domain - signers swear to or acknowledge by virtue of their signature on the document itself...

Reply by NJDiva on 7/7/11 10:22am
Msg #388878

jfs, I knew what you meant...no confusion here...

It is difficult sometimes though to keep up and to easily get confused...lol

Reply by NCLisa on 7/7/11 10:37am
Msg #388890

Attorneys in NC use it all the time. n/m

Reply by HisHughness on 7/7/11 11:07am
Msg #388900

I am puzzled by the direction of this discussion

Or maybe not.

When I responded to the original post, I did so under the assumption that I had the affiant in front of me signing the document. I did not consider it a jurat; I considered it an acknowledgment. And when the notarial certification specifies that the affiant "has affixed his/her signature," that, in my view, constitutes an acknowledgment that it is his/her signature, especially if I have seen them sign the document.

On the other hand:

I don't think any words of art are required here. If I was presented with such a document, ALREADY signed, I don't think I have to ask the signer, "Do you <acknowledge> this is your signature?" I think I can simply ask them, "Is this your signature?"

All of which is to say, I think the certification is an acknowledgment, not a jurat.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 7/7/11 11:35am
Msg #388904

It's all hypothetical Hugh, just practice. :) n/m

Reply by MikeC/NY on 7/7/11 4:12pm
Msg #388963

If that's the entire statement, it's not acceptable in NY.