Posted by Marian_in_CA on 7/18/12 11:17pm
Msg #427347

Update to my UPS store "drama" and more on the one line bit

This is an update to Msg #426702 which got more response than I imagined.

About three days ago I received a call from somebody who said he got my name from a UPS Store -- turns out to be the same store referenced in the above post.

Had to go back yesterday for another deposit...and I chose to return to the same store. I'm brave, why the heck not! (As a side note, USAA Bank allows customers to make check deposits at many, though not all, UPS Stores. It's really handy and funds are usually immediately available. So, that's usually why I'm in there, not to ship or anything.)

Anyway, the young lady was on duty again and she thanked me for what I did and said that she'd been doing it the way I told her ever since. She brought it up, not me. Then she asked for my cards because they sometimes have things they can't handle... including the issue that they referred a few days prior.

So... all in all, it seems that my meddling was a good thing for her. I know I wouldn't have done any differently, really, but it's good to know all the same. I did apologize to her for butting in while she was with her customer (for that I did feel bad) and said I'd hoped that I didn't embarrass her.... she said that she wasn't embarrassed at all, that she appreciated it because all she knows is what she's been told by her boss and their XYZ trainer/training materials and didn't realize they were not the authority that she thought they were.

Now, as for the one line per act thing... I fully respect some some other CA notaries feel differently about this and realize that it is an interpretation issue in some respects. I fully admit that I run pretty conservative in that regard. I also do not claim to be a guru, but I try very hard to fully understand everything and am very open to opinion and changing the way I do things. However, I'm also pretty strict about how I go about that. I'm a technical writer by trade (excuse the poor typing skills, I really suck at typing) and I love research. So, when I want to learn something, I really get in to it. Sadly, I've earned the "Marian the Librarian" nickname.

That said... here we go!

Harry posted the PDF of some minutes from the Education Vendor's meeting that took place on 10/23/2009. This comes right from the Secretary of State (though the file is posted on NotRot thanks to Harry). All CA notary education vendors got this:

http://www.notaryrotary.com/library/10-23-09-vendors-meeting-minutes-final.pdf

The XYZ also had this same information and in February 2010, they published an article referencing it. That link won't work on this forum, but if you Google, "For California Notaries, A Signature On Every Line" the article should pop up in the results for you.

This is one of the documents that I carry with me. The section the pertains on the top of page 4. It's part of a long section of Q&A clarifications from teachers:

"Q, When multiple notarial acts are performed, is it acceptable for a diagonal line to be drawn from the first document to the last document in the notary public journal with a single signature covering all transactions? In addition, can ditto (“) marks be used in the journal?

A. Government Code section 8206 requires that the notary public's journal include all the information for "each official act." Therefore, each act would include the date, time, type of each official act, character of the instrument, signature, type of identification, fee, and thumbprint (if applicable) on a separate line for each act."


That's pretty clear to me, and it *is* in the handbook, too. See page 9 and 27. It's pretty clear that this information needs to be recorded for "each official act" -- which means that if you've got 5 official acts, you've got 5 entries that include the date, time, type of act, signature, etc. as written above.

The reasoning is kind of obvious, if you think about it. If you're asked to provide a line item for a POA that was done with multiple other documents, you can't just provide a copy of the line items for everything unless each of those specific documents were requested, too. Let's say an auditor from the SOS's office calls and asks for just that one line. If you used dittos or a diagonal, you won't have all of the information recorded on that single line. And, if you put multiple acts in a single entry, for instance, you haven't recorded a signature for each official act.

Now, I can see how the "each official act" phrase is only written next to the "Date, time and type of act" phrase ... so in that regard I can see how some might interpret that to mean that only that information be recorded... and, therefore, why not be able to put them all on one line? I can see that argument, though I don't support it, especially after reading the clarification to the education vendors where they clearly state, " Therefore, each act would include the date, time, type of each official act, character of the instrument, signature, type of identification, fee, and thumbprint (if applicable) on a separate line for each act."

Now, the downside to this, of course, is that this document (the meeting notes) wasn't published to all the notaries, not on the SOS's website that I can find, nor is it expressly clarified in the handbook beyond the code itself (which I, personally, think is self explanatory.) It's just a memo of meeting minutes for those who teach CA notaries.

However, in the 2012 sample workbook, which is an approved educational workbook and covers everything on the exam, this *is* specifically stated and is freely available for download from the SOS's website:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-education-sample-workbook-2012.pdf

And is found on this page:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/become-a-vendor.htm

See pages 24-26, specifically it says, "A separate line must be used for each document. For example, if a notary public completes an acknowledgment certificate on a deed of trust and an acknowledgment certificate on a promissory note, the notary public must record on separate lines in the journal that a “deed of trust” and “promissory note” were the character of the instruments with notarized signatures, completing each line of the journal, in full. The notary public cannot simply state that “loan docs” or “closing documents” were acknowledged. (California Government Code section 8206(a)(2)(B).)"

Note that it says we need to use one entry for each document and it must be completed, in full. I don't know how much more clear they could be on that.

Of course, while this is freely available and published... it isn't expressly written in the handbook nor something the average Notary would think to look for. I blame that on the Sec. of State's office. They need to be told that this information should be better clarified in the handbook.

I hope that clears up my position and the reasoning as to how I feel the way I do. I'm certainly open to hearing and considering other interpretations, but I haven't been convinced otherwise yet.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/18/12 11:48pm
Msg #427350

Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

of your state's notorial laws.
Again, let me say how thankful I am that I do not have to conduct my NSA biz in your fair state.
When you are doing multiple, notarizations for one or a group of individuals at one time and place , as when you are conducting a loan signing, it strikes me a a massive waste of ink, paper, time and effort to duplicate the same information, for what are multiple , virtually identical acks and jurats for the same info.
I can not imagine that the CA legislature intended the public and notaries to be put thru this exercise . It adds nothing to the security or accuracy of the dox being notarized.
Again, this is NOT intended to be a reflection on your professionalism.
I would be curious to know if the CA SOS has ever disciplined a Notary for using ditto marks and/or diagonal lines to indicate the required , identical information in their journal for multiple dox being executed at one time by a single , or multiple signers, (eg a typical loan package. )

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/18/12 11:49pm
Msg #427351

: OOPS should be Marian. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/18/12 11:55pm
Msg #427352

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

Bob, I don't disagree with your. It does seem like a waste... although I also see the other side of it, too, because of our state laws requiring us to provide copies of journal entries if requested by a member of the public.

You said, "I would be curious to know if the CA SOS has ever disciplined a Notary for using ditto marks and/or diagonal lines to indicate the required , identical information in their journal for multiple dox being executed at one time by a single , or multiple signers, (eg a typical loan package. )"

That's a good question. I'm guessing that the answer is likely yes, though we don't see it. In the 2012 newsletter they put out, they made a big deal of pointing out the following, "Investigators report that, either as the result of a complaint regarding notarial misconduct or as a result of an audit, a large majority of journals are not completed correctly." (Page 4, http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2012.pdf)

Note it says, "...a large majority..."

To me, that means they are looking at journals and sanctioning notaries. Why would they go to the effort of auditing and reviewing, to find that the majority of journal entries aren't done properly, point it out in the newsletter and then NOT discipline any of them?

Reply by HisHughness on 7/19/12 12:44am
Msg #427354

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

Marian, you wouldn't be able to make a living in Texas. It is not uncommon for a packet here to have more than 20 notarizations. Add a spouse in, and you've got 40 full entries in your journal. That means that, rather than assisting in the expeditious completion of a transaction, you have become a major impediment.

I would never interpret the code section you cited as requiring something so pointless and time consuming. I think I could probably come up with about three different approaches that would be far more efficient and that I could reasonably argue would be compliant with the code. Conversely, the approach you have taken, from the standpoint of getting business done, is the most onerous and restrictive that could be adopted -- and it accomplishes nothing that other far less time-consuming approaches would not accomplish. Absent a written opinion from whatever California authority can issue binding opinions on statutes, I would just never adopt the approach you have.

I can guarantee you that given a choice, if a Texas homeowner had used both of us to refinance in the past, that he would without heisitation ask for me for all future transactions.

I can also almost guarantee you that if I found a way around the statute you cited, the SOS would give me an attaboy instead of a sanction if the matter ever came to his attention.

This just strikes me as the notary inserting himself (Okay: Herself) kneedeep in a signer's transaction just to expand the notary's role. My philosophy about what I do is basically, the less involvement I have in the transaction itself, the better I fulfill my role.

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/19/12 12:53am
Msg #427356

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

Was posting my junk... but right on bro!!!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/19/12 1:13am
Msg #427360

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

"Absent a written opinion from whatever California authority can issue binding opinions on statutes, I would just never adopt the approach you have."

Except that the training book approved by the Secretary of State (as I cited in my original post) specifically states, "A separate line must be used for each document. For example, if a notary public completes an acknowledgment certificate on a deed of trust and an acknowledgment certificate on a promissory note, the notary public must record on separate lines in the journal that a “deed of trust” and “promissory note” were the character of the instruments with notarized signatures, completing each line of the journal, in full. The notary public cannot simply state that “loan docs” or “closing documents” were acknowledged. (California Government Code section 8206(a)(2)(B).)"

I've always thought that it is time consuming and annoying to handle it that way... I don't disagree... but no amount of business expediency trumps state law. Sorry....especially not a state the hold large fines and jail time over our heads for failing to do things properly.

Reply by HisHughness on 7/19/12 1:41am
Msg #427366

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

I read the code, Marian, and again, ifI tried hard enough I could find 3 plausible ways around that.

The law is never fixed and immutable; that's why there are courts. If you can offer a reasonable interpretation of the law that permits you to do what the law is trying to accomplish, and at the same time expedite the process, you're not going to get into trouble.

Your notary handbook, in the final analysis, is not the ultimate authority. It was written by a $30,000 a year state employe, glanced at by the SOS, and sent out to trusting notaries from the Pacific to the Nevada border. The handbook does not even purport to have the force of law, and if it did, I'd still find some way to expedite the process till somebody specifically told me I couldn't.

Reply by linda/ca on 7/19/12 1:35am
Msg #427365

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

I totally agree, Bob, Hugh and Clem. I would chance going to Jell rather than enduring that line/oath/line/oath....exercise!! You would think that after a person has gone through that procedure so many years that he/she would come to realize they must be doing something very wrong! Bottom line if someone "is" putting themselves and the borrower through that, it is self-imposed; because no where is that procedure written in the handbook, including the codes!

Marion, do you sell journals for the XYZ on the side?? I know you have made comments about being a member? JK! On the serious side, as I mentioned in a previous post on this subject.......a person would go through their journal 10 times faster than necessary and I have always truly believed it's a ploy to get notaries to purchase more journals!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/19/12 2:05am
Msg #427368

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

heh...nope. I use the NotRot journal. I do not like the XYZ journal format, never have.

Although, I don't really like the NotRot journal, either, for the way that I journal. But that's a personal preference...not a knock to the NotRot journal. I think the NotRot journal is the best one on the market right now.

I *am* a member of the XYZ.... yes. I've never hidden that. My membership was paid for by somebody else and let it remain just because. Trust me,though, I have no intention of renewing in November when my commission renews.

"I would chance going to Jell rather than enduring that line/oath/line/oath....exercise!!"

I'm not even sure what to say to that... Is it like risking a speeding ticket or reckless driving conviction (or fatal accident?) for the sake of being able to speed? I know a lot of people do that. I'm not that kind of person, though.

If all we had was the code to go by... I'd get it. But the Sec of State has documents where they interpret the code to mean what it is.

Look at it like this. In CA, it's the rule that on a 2-lane highway, unless otherwise posted, the speed limit is 55MPH. If you get pulled over for doing 85 on an open highway that isn't posted with a speed limit... what do you tell the officer or the judge? Do you say, "Well, there is no specific sign posted so I just went as fast as I wanted. What does it matter? It's a deserted highway." How far would that get you?

From personal experience... I can answer that one. It'll get you a $300+ citation.

Reply by linda/ca on 7/19/12 2:14am
Msg #427370

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

"I would chance going to Jell rather than enduring that line/oath/line/oath....exercise!!"

I'm not even sure what to say to that... Is it like risking a speeding ticket or reckless driving conviction (or fatal accident?) for the sake of being able to speed? I know a lot of people do that. I'm not that kind of person, though.

Whoops!.....first of all, sorry about incorrect spelling of Jail. Secondly, I didn't think anyone would take that statement seriously. So I will make myself clear.....I was just kidding folks!

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/19/12 1:10am
Msg #427359

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

You CAN provide a copy of the entry it just contains more data than asked for. State law does not say don't show any other docs from this person on that date and time. (Intent) I think it is because the law does not want the other peoples info to be spread out "Willie Nillie".

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/19/12 1:18am
Msg #427361

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

Except that it's not a date/time issue. When somebody requests a copy of an entry, they have to supply the month and year, the name of the individual and the nature of the document.

If we're "allowed" to show people any old entry in our journals... then why the requirement to keep them locked up and under our exclusive control? Why the required paper trail if a LEO takes our journals?

The only "public" access granted to our journals is line item access when providing specific information on a particular act.

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/19/12 1:21am
Msg #427363

Re: Marion, I DO respect your adherence to your interpertation

Maybe mis read " that date and time."

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/19/12 12:41am
Msg #427353

More on the one line bit

So here is he CA law http://law.onecle.com/california/government/8206.html

The only argument I see for multiple lines is Line (A) otherwise the other requirements are covered on one line, you might have to write very small or use the Not Rot journal, but....


If you take line A (A) Date, time, and type of each official act.
and take the the word . time . it would imply that your journal might say, DOT 10:00, Signature/Name Affidavit 10:02. blah blah.... is this what you do? Go by your watch? What if your Watch is off by 10 mins, do you get the cert thrown out because the BO's clock said a different time? I think the intent of the law was to provide things for things that have to be done in a time line demanding order, such as recording a Grant deed to take a property out of trust...Refinancing, THEN... another grant deed to put it back in trust, thus giving a time line of events. The fact that a DOT or a Signature/name Affidavit were done at the same time is irrelevant, in my opinion. The loan signing process was done at the same time as each document could be presented in different orders , thus nullifying the whole thing if done in the wrong order.

Could we judge the official act time as when we give an oath? Some of us oath all at once, some on each certificate. Witch ones will be thrown out of court, (Witch Hunt) as they are both very different approaches? I think this is a gray area and would not matter in court. ( Intent)

That being said....

Are you providing the rules in the above link by putting all the information for a loan signing on one line, including

(A) Date, time, and type of each official act.
(B) Character of every instrument sworn to, affirmed,
acknowledged, or proved before the notary.
(C) The signature of each person whose signature is being
notarized.
(D) A statement as to whether the identity of a person making an
acknowledgment or taking an oath or affirmation was based on
satisfactory evidence. If identity was established by satisfactory
evidence pursuant to Section 1185 of the Civil Code, the journal
shall contain the signature of the credible witness swearing or
affirming to the identity of the individual or the type of
identifying document, the governmental agency issuing the document,
the serial or identifying number of the document, and the date of
issue or expiration of the document.
(E) If the identity of the person making the acknowledgment or
taking the oath or affirmation was established by the oaths or
affirmations of two credible witnesses whose identities are proven to
the notary public by presentation of any document satisfying the
requirements of paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section
1185 of the Civil Code, the notary public shall record in the journal
the type of documents identifying the witnesses, the identifying
numbers on the documents identifying the witnesses, and the dates of
issuance or expiration of the documents identifying the witnesses.
(F) The fee charged for the notarial service.
(G) If the document to be notarized is a deed, quitclaim deed,
deed of trust affecting real property, or a power of attorney
document, the notary public shall require the party signing the
document to place his or her right thumbprint in the journal. If the
right thumbprint is not available, then the notary shall have the
party use his or her left thumb, or any available finger and shall so
indicate in the journal. If the party signing the document is
physically unable to provide a thumbprint or fingerprint, the notary
shall so indicate in the journal and shall also provide an
explanation of that physical condition. This paragraph shall not
apply to a trustee's deed resulting from a decree of foreclosure or a
nonjudicial foreclosure pursuant to Section 2924 of the Civil Code,
nor to a deed of reconveyance.

I think the answer is YES but WTF do I know, as I am not an attorney

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/19/12 12:50am
Msg #427355

Re: More on the one line bit

slight correction The line

The loan signing process was done at the same time as each document could be presented in different orders , thus nullifying the whole thing if done in the wrong order.

should have read

If the loan signing process was done at the time as each document but the documents were presented, perhaps because of printing or stacking order, would this nullify the whole, loan?


Sorry its late and I did 6 today.....

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/19/12 1:03am
Msg #427357

Re: More on the one line bit

Whatever... LOL you know what I mean.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/19/12 1:09am
Msg #427358

Re: More on the one line bit

Right, as I said, I can see how, strictly interpreting code, I can see how people would think this. I happen to disagree, but I understand the argument.

I just think that I interpret the code differently, and I can point to two different publications from the Secretary of State backing up my interpretation. Where my biggest support to that disagreement, though comes from the education handbook, which is available on the Sec of State's website and is officially approved for training:

"A separate line must be used for each document. For example, if a notary public completes an acknowledgment certificate on a deed of trust and an acknowledgment certificate on a promissory note, the notary public must record on separate lines in the journal that a “deed of trust” and “promissory note” were the character of the instruments with notarized signatures, completing each line of the journal, in full. The notary public cannot simply state that “loan docs” or “closing documents” were acknowledged. (California Government Code section 8206(a)(2)(B).)"

That is what the Secretary of State has approved and deems appropriate for training, and obviously how they interpret that code. Since they are the governing authority for us, it seems wise to follow what they say... else face an appeal hearing with an attorney of your own trying to fight disciplinary decisions.

I'd rather just do what they dictate and not take the risk.

If somebody can provide something from the SoS that says otherwise, I'd love to see it... because then we'd need to contact them for clarification, but the only official writings I've found clarify it it as one line per act.

Reply by Clem/CA on 7/19/12 1:18am
Msg #427362

Re: More on the one line bit

OK here is your reference... THE LAW, not the training manual.

8206(a)(2)(B).)

(B) Character of every instrument sworn to, affirmed,
acknowledged, or proved before the notary.

A check mark in a box that says Jurat or a check mark in a box that says acknowledgment, if you have that type of journal, would provide that character. but hey if you want to write out that many lines I'll send you a pen!!!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/19/12 1:25am
Msg #427364

Re: More on the one line bit

Clem... I got that part. As I've said twice now, I'm not disagreeing here.

But I've also got, in writing from the Secretary of State, our governing authority, two different documents (both of which I've linked for review) where they interpret that very law to indicate that each act gets its' own line and each line contains all of the required information per act -- and that's date, time, type, signature, ID, etc.

What I'm asking for is something from them wherein they interpret it different than that. I haven't been able to find anything. I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea if somebody can provide it.

Reply by linda/ca on 7/19/12 2:04am
Msg #427367

Re: More on the one line bit

Marion wrote: "I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea if somebody can provide it."

Marion, I doubt if any one really care if you entertain the idea or not; that is entirely up to you if that's your preference and it certainly is a preference!

I am not trying to argue the point to prove anyone wrong and I certainly admire your passion, however, my passion is motivated by the fact that when I see notaries adopt that procedure and hear complaints from friends, family members and borrower's, as well, about how ridiculous and upset they are/were with a notary who put them through that torture. I am only speaking-up against this practice in order to hopefully help stop the madness! Not to mention that erroneous information, as with this topic, is not a good thing to be left unchallenged/corrected on this informative notary site.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/19/12 2:11am
Msg #427369

Re: More on the one line bit

Okay, let me ask then. Is it okay to ignore the guidance from the Secretary of State because it annoys people?

Let's take their new directive in the 2012 newsletter about stapling loose certificates. Obviously, this really ticks off some people because of scanning and faxing issues, especially with large loan packages.

Do you ignore what the Sec of State tells you to do because what you do annoys a possible client?

Not that I'm accusing anyone here of this... this is just an example.... but this is the kind of attitude that sparked the robo signing issues. If you bend on one thing, why not bend on letting somebody borrow your seal? I mean, it's more convenient to let them just stamp something for you, right?

How long do you think you can keep your commission if you openly say, "I don't care what the Secretary of State says...but the procedure they dictate is just too annoying, so forget it."

Reply by linda/ca on 7/19/12 2:38am
Msg #427371

Re: More on the one line bit

"Okay, let me ask then. Is it okay to ignore the guidance from the Secretary of State because it annoys people?

Let's take their new directive in the 2012 newsletter about stapling loose certificates. Obviously, this really ticks off some people because of scanning and faxing issues, especially with large loan packages.

Do you ignore what the Sec of State tells you to do because what you do annoys a possible client?

Hi, Marian, I never said I ignore the guidance of the SOS. I think the reason you are not understanding the spirit in which my comments were given is because you are certain that you are correct on this matter. I on the other hand, do not entertain that thought at all. Of course I follow the directions of the SOS and I have never received a negative comment from a client about stapling loose certificates. Let me make it perfectly clear, however, I would not worry (not even a tiny bit) about it, if a client was annoyed because I take obeying the superior authorities very serious! I would never let anyone intimidate me into disobeying the rules, especially due to the fact that they are annoyed. I think we better both "hit the sack, Marian;" it's very late here in California! Again, with all due respect, if you feel what you are doing is absolutely correct, you should adhere to your belief!

Reply by VT_Syrup on 7/19/12 5:52am
Msg #427372

Re: More on the one line bit, also, time.

I won't try to interpret CA laws or regulations; I'm just commenting on journals performing their intended function. It is useful for a journal to indicate how many documents a signer signed on a particular occasion, so the other party has more difficulty creating a document later and claiming it was signed with the others. I don't have a Modern Journal of Notarial Acts, and I can't read the check boxes on the order page, but conceivably, more than one check box might apply to a single document. For example, on rare occasions, a signer might be asked to both swear to and acknowledge a document. So it isn't always obvious how many separate documents were notarized. A way around this would be to write in the front of the journal something like "Each check mark in column X represents a separate document unless otherwise stated". Also, I like the idea of putting multiple signers on one line, and modifying the page as necessary to make this happen, to make it clear they all signed the same document, as opposed for example, to John signing one affidavit and Julie signing a different affidavit.

As for time, the law usually treats a day as a single unit and things that were signed on the same day are of "even date" and that's the end of it. But the time of day does come into play if the signer denies signing the document. If the journal says he signed at 10 AM in San Bernadino, and the LAX airport security cameras show him picking up his luggage at 10 AM, he probably didn't sign. But if the notary journal says 11 PM and the signer claims to have been home alone at that time, the signing is more plausible.

Reply by Notary1/CO on 7/19/12 1:20pm
Msg #427410

I did a Google search for California SOS notary disciplinary actions but did not find any published list of actions. Maybe it is available upon request.

I did find proposed changes to the SOS disciplinary guidelines.

The current guidelines were effective 3/31/2001 and are available on the SOS website at http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-guidelines-2001.pdf

Page 13 discusses "8214.1(d) Failure to Fully and Faithfully Discharge Any of the Duties or Responsibilities of a Notary Public" including "Failure to maintain and secure journal".

The proposed 2012 changes in disciplinary guidelines are at http://www.sos.ca.gov/admin/regulations/proposed/business/notary/docs/disciplinary-guidelines-illustrated-changes.pdf

Pages 17-18 have been changed to read "8214.1(d) Failure to Discharge the Duties or Responsibilities of a Notary Public" and "Failure to maintain the notary journal with complete records of official acts".

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 7/19/12 1:53pm
Msg #427415

Yeah, I picked up on that, as well...

The proposed changes also make it so that the Sec of State will be able to publish disciplinary actions online, which they can't do now apparently... they can only publish them in writing. I suppose a list is available if somebody calls and asks.

From what I'm seeing coming out of their office, they are really pushing for journal keeping compliance.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/19/12 2:52pm
Msg #427426

Re: Yeah, I picked up on that, as well...

"From what I'm seeing coming out of their office, they are really pushing for journal keeping compliance."

And I think we'd probably all agree that this is a very good thing. What would make the most sense to me is that their efforts are directed at the sloppy end of the spectrum when it comes to journal record keeping. And I don't doubt there is plenty of that for them to address.

Several of us have given examples we've come across of really appalling practices when it comes to sloppy journal keeping practices, e.g. writing "loan docs" vs. listing each one. (In fact, I believe that's an example given somewhere by the SOS.) Or notaries not recording ID info or not including the type of notarization or the character of the document, not getting signatures or required thumbprints, etc. Those kinds of practices are certainly well worth cracking down on. However, I suspect that the SOS (or a court of law) would be significantly less concerned about whether or not a journal records a one or two minute difference between when a stamp or signature was applied to one document vs another when conducting a loan signing at one sitting.

Each notary is responsible to make sure they are recording the required information and should feel comfortable that whatever system they use, they can provide that required information if requested. But I don't believe there is only one right way to do that. The most important thing, imo, is to find a system that works for you consistently so that there are no omissions, and that will always be up to date.

Reply by Notary1/CO on 7/19/12 4:19pm
Msg #427439

Any CA instructors that teach how to make journal entries?

If the SOS does not provide a written example of the journal entry format they require, are there any CA notary instructors here that teach how to make journal entries, using course material approved by the SOS?

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/19/12 7:50pm
Msg #427464

Agree with Marian 100%

One complete line entry per item to notarize. To save time, if there are 50 line entries, just fully complete the first line entry (name, time, date, fee, ID, check type of ID box, check ack or jurat box, title of doc) and the other entries can just have client's name, title of doc, and check ack or jurat box. All the redundant info - ID, time, date, fee can be filled in later.

Completely agree, Marian, that the law is crystal clear on this issue. JMHO

Reply by Notary1/CO on 7/19/12 11:39pm
Msg #427483

CA Notary blog agrees with one entry per line

Here's an interesting blog post from a California notary agreeing with one entry per line. It discusses the advantages of having more room to record additional information for each notarized document, and, recording the time stamp for each notarization provides some evidence of the amount of time spent with the signer.

This may be useful to show that reasonable care was taken by the notary, rather than a rush point-and-sign approach. It may also be useful to show long signings, with many docs, or a signer that reads every word, or other delays, such as phone calls to/from the signing service, title or the lender.

http://championmobilenotary.com/blog/2010/10/26/whats-important-about-the-notary-journal-entries/