Posted by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/8/12 4:35pm
Msg #426010

Nobody asked me ...

.. but that Chicago Title/Fidelity form requring a jurat where the borrowers have to take an oath and swear and/or affirm and promise forevermore to tell the truth that they received two copies each of the RTC is just over the top. Borrowers look like I'm nuts when I tell them this aff requires an oath and here goes, blah blah, blah, you got two copies of the RTC, which you are looking at as we speak. And this is a TC form, not even from the lender.

Sometimes I wonder if these TC people have any idea as to the actual importance of administering an oath. Why not just request an ack? Or have the borrowers simply initial? And save the oath for the important stuff that it was probably meant for... not including that you received copies of the RTC (duh), not that you promise to pay any "missed" escrow fees, not that you promise you haven't taken on new debt since you applied for the loan, etc. etc. Gimme a break. In fact I bet if this doc were being signed at a Chicago Title/Fidelity office by an office notary, the last thing they'd do is give an oath.

Actually, I had two back-to-back branch signings last week where the bank printed the docs but not a copy for the borrowers. They told each borrower they'd e-mail them their copy (sure, just like they e-mailed them their copy of the appraisal, which they also never got). Therefore, I couldn't do the oath thing. (Yeah!)

Reply by HisHughness on 7/8/12 5:05pm
Msg #426011

Do you not administer an oath at the outset for the entire signing? Surely you don't require the B to take an oath for each document with a jurat?

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/8/12 5:27pm
Msg #426012

No, I don't administer an oath at the get-go cos there are many loan pkgs that have no affs - like Chase and Provident, for example. My MO is to do the oath for the first aff I get to and them remind them on any subsequent affs that the oath still applies (kinda like they used to do on"Perry Mason." LOL).

I don't know why I would do an oath if there are no jurats in the pkg ...? But I know there are probably plenty of notaries who do. Just like there are plenty of notaries who t-print everybody whether their state calls for it or not and regardless of the doc they are signing, whether the legislature mandated it or not ....

Anyway, the point was about all these silly affs!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/8/12 5:41pm
Msg #426015

I go over each affidavit with them individually

so they know what they're swearing to.

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/8/12 5:47pm
Msg #426016

Re: I go over each affidavit with them individually

Yep me too

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/8/12 10:38pm
Msg #426039

Re: I go over each affidavit with them individually

You know what? I don't give a patootie about how ya'll do affidavits. The OP was not about you. Either you need to take a how-to-focus-on-the-subject-at-hand class and get over yourself or I need to spell things out like A.B.C. Yikes!

So once again, I was wondering if any of you had a sense that some affidavits crossed the line into the nonsensical, thus degrading the whole oath process. An oath is a solemn promise as to the truthfulness of something, and not everybody is authorized to administer them. This is one of the amazing things (to me) about being a notary, that we can compel people to make these pledges. It certainly makes sense as to name and signature affidavits. Yet, TCs want us to do this to make sure borrowers got a complete copy of their docs or got copies of the RTC or will pay later if the escrow officer transposed a few numbers and the settlement statement came up short?

I guess they can willy-nilly throw in any aff they want, it just seems to me ... inappropriate in some cases.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/9/12 5:37am
Msg #426042

Guess you don't recognize when someone actually

supports you huh? I was responding to Hugh about blanket oaths at the beginning- you obviously don't do it and don't believe in it and neither do I...thereby supporting YOUR position.

As for your original question, FWIW at this point because I'm sure you'll find some reason to resent my response, yes, I too I find the numerous mundane affidavits ridiculous, but we do what we're asked to do...and hopefully get adequately paid for it.

There ya go...let the rock throwing commence.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/9/12 10:02am
Msg #426059

I prefer to repeat the oath every time. Covers all bases and

reminds the signer that they are signing each document under penalties of perjury.

Reply by HisHughness on 7/9/12 11:55am
Msg #426071

Re: I prefer to repeat the oath every time. Covers all bases and

We have had this discussion more than once on this forum, and no one yet has given me a reason that a borrower should be inconvenienced more than a witness in a murder trial. In such a proceeding, as we all know, the witness is not administered an oath before every question. He is sworn in once, and that's it. In fact, he can leave the stand, others can testify, and he can come back days later and will be told that he is still under oath.

Personally, I think the idea that an oath has to be administered for each jurat is ridiculous. It is, I believe, a manifestation of the notary public seeking to make himself more important to the process than he really is, and I certainly hope that Robert is not telling his students it is necessary or even desirable. It is a disservice to them, and to the signers they serve.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/9/12 12:57pm
Msg #426083

Hugh, I sent you a p/m since it's off-topic n/m

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/9/12 1:20pm
Msg #426086

Without a directive (or even an opinion) from the Governor's

office, I have, and will continue, to teach my students that a separate oath be administered for each document.

Pfffffft.

Reply by HisHughness on 7/9/12 1:33pm
Msg #426090

Re: Without a directive (or even an opinion) from the Governor's

If I were a praying man, I would say a few words of gratitude tonight that you never taught cross-examination at either my law school or any of the in-service seminars I attended.

Oh, wait a minute: <I> taught cross-examination at those seminars, so it wouldn't have been a problem.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/9/12 1:22pm
Msg #426087

Geez, FlaNotary2 ....

... if I cared how you did affidavits, I would have asked. That goes for you, too, HH, as you have now officially hijacked the OP into territory that, you are right, has been previously done to death. But thank you to those who actually responded, esp. Texas Mike - gave me a different perspective.

Reply by HisHughness on 7/9/12 2:02pm
Msg #426095

Re: Geez, FlaNotary2 ....

You're right about the hijack, GG, and I apologize. My original post was actually looking for clarification, not to challenge. This thread nonetheless has been productive in establishing just how far a desire to magnify the notary's role in what otherwise should be a simple proceeding can push an otherwise reasonable signing agent.

The following is going to be really biting, and I'm sorry for that, but I think it's come time to say it.

Robert occupies a special position on this board. He teaches a class for wannabe notaries in Florida. Some of our other posters also are instructors, and because of that position, most of us pay closer attention to what they say than we might to the typical signing agent.

I also occupy a special position. Though I am retired, I am one of several attorneys on the board. Because of that, some may place more emphasis on what I have to say than on my colleagues' comments. I try not to strive for that, though; I try to post as a signing agent, and only rarely is my legal background a factor.

That is not Robert's approach. He wants everyone to know that he is an instructor. That's okay, if that is what he wishes to do, but I have a major problem with something else about Robert. Apparently, he became a notary while still in his teens, and he is enamored of his "stature." He's not been elected or appointed to office, he hasn't finished college yet, he has yet to earn the admission to the bar he hopes to achieve.

Instead, he keeps trying to get ahead of his actual achievements by trying to make the position of notary public far more than it is. Based on his postings on this board, the result is to insert himself wholesale into people's business when it is totally unnecessary. Even worse, he apparently is passing that attitude on to his students.

The role of a notary is to help people get their business done, not make it more complicated than necessary. And that role is far too limited for Robert's tastes.

Make no mistake: Robert knows his business. On at least one occasion, he has corrected me, if I recall. He can make worthy contributions to this board. The problem is, he knows his role well enough to know where he can expand it, even if it doesn't need expanding. That serves his ego. It doesn't serve signers nor, I daresay, his students.

Consider carefully if Robert suggests that you adopt an approach not required by law. There is a good chance that you -- and your signers -- are simply feeding Robert's ego.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/9/12 3:24pm
Msg #426107

OK, HH

Well... lemme say this about that, then. I agree that there are many notaries on this board - instructors, paralegals, real estate types and jus' plain old notary folks - who go completely overboard in the conduct of their duties as notaries.

There's a big difference between fulfilling what your state mandates and crossing over into doing things that are not forbidden but that are not mandated. Such as notaries who t-print everybody who walks into the room, regardless if their state even calls for t-prints. Or CA notaries who require t-prints for documents for which t-prints are not required. If the CA legislature wanted t-prints for every notarial act, it would have said so. (Maybe.)

Same for affidavits. Hyperventilating each time an affidavit appears in a loan pkg. is nearing what I call root-canal loan signing (don't ever say that to a dentist, tho). Same for those notaries who require a t-print and signature for every notarized doc in a loan package.

Judging by posts on NotRot, there are many notaries who insert themselves into the signing process worse than this. These I call "Lil' Lawyers." They got a commission which maybe or maybe not required education and a test, and off they boldly go, pushing the limits and beyond of what we are mandated to do. They tend to get all puffed up with some silly sense of self-importance just cos they're a notary, sometimes to the point of becoming an obstructionist instead of a facilitator.

But that's just my opinion.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/9/12 3:25pm
Msg #426108

Hugh! Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Because

you sure are being a jerk today...

>>That is not Robert's approach. He wants everyone to know that he is an instructor. That's okay, if that is what he wishes to do, but I have a major problem with something else about Robert. Apparently, he became a notary while still in his teens, and he is enamored of his "stature." He's not been elected or appointed to office, he hasn't finished college yet, he has yet to earn the admission to the bar he hopes to achieve.<<

Let me correct you on a few points. First, yes I'm an instructor and if I want people to know it I will say it. I became a notary when I was in my teens because I WORKED AT A LAW OFFICE when I was in high school and needed it as a job requirement. I HAVE been appointed to office, including Notary Public (which is an appointed office) as well as a Commissioner of Deeds in three states. I HAVE finished college (maybe you should follow my timeline, then you would know!) I have been accepted into law school and am starting in September. I'm 22 years old and will be out of law school at 25. I'm pushing through as fast as I can and your stupid little comments are unnecessary.

>>The role of a notary is to help people get their business done, not make it more complicated than necessary. And that role is far too limited for Robert's tastes.<<

Hugh, I know where I have room to develop interpretations on notary law, but I also know what my limits are and I teach my students the basic practices I am expected to teach by the Executive Office of the Governor. I do not teach protests or complicated theories/interpretations of notary law; BUT, this forum is a place for professional notaries and is the appropriate forum for debate.

We do not need to kowtow to our clients; we shouldn't make things extremely difficult but we CAN set certain boundaries for ourselves. Here in Florida we have unlimited liability and are considered QUASI-JUDICIAL... we DO get to exercise some discretion.

>>Consider carefully if Robert suggests that you adopt an approach not required by law. There is a good chance that you -- and your signers -- are simply feeding Robert's ego.<<

Enough about the ego thing. I don't address myself as "His Robertness" and I don't always feel the need to use big words to belittle people. If you think I have a big ego because I think I'm well accomplished for someone whose 22 years old, get over it, please. A hit dog will holler.

And the church says AMEN

Reply by Notary1/CO on 7/8/12 6:14pm
Msg #426021

"Don't call me Shirley" Leslie Nielsen

The classic movie line from Airport! (1980) on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA

Reply by MikeC/TX on 7/8/12 11:52pm
Msg #426040

My guess is that the TC is requiring this affidavit because they've been burned more than a few times by people who claimed they never got the required RTC copies. With a notarized affidavit in hand, that problem goes away...

I don't think it's a misunderstanding on their part of the importance of administering an oath - they know exactly what they're doing. The whole RTC thing may seem unimportant, but failure to provide the two copies can give the borrowers an out on the loan at a later date. By requiring the borrowers to swear to the fact that they received the required copies, the TC is avoiding future problems. Sounds like good business sense to me - I'm surprised no one else is doing it.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/9/12 12:01am
Msg #426041

I have seen prior mortgage close out "affidavits", but

the classic was a privacy notice with a jurat . It was on of about a dozen "title affidavits" Talk about overkill and a total waste of notary effort and stamp ink.