Posted by Bip on 5/17/13 12:47pm
Msg #470344

Are CA notaries still using NR Modern Notary Journal?

NNA is pushing hard against this great journal..thoughts?

Reply by Yoli/CA on 5/17/13 12:54pm
Msg #470345

I use MoJo - have been since my first commission January 2006. I'm used to it and like it. I like the format and the spacing provided for notations.

Earlier this year, I thought I try something else. Ordered it, received it, didn't like the layout/format, returned it for a full refund. Immediately ordered some more MoJo's here at NotRot.

Reply by Bip on 5/17/13 1:04pm
Msg #470347

I have met with some dedicated NNA notaries that have been threatened in their classes that this journal is no longer state compliant. I did my own research and find it to meet the law requirements. I am meeting more an more notaries that are freaked out about it,.But since it is from this company, I would think many that post in this forum would be using it and was wondering what their discoveries are.

Reply by rengel/CA on 5/17/13 1:24pm
Msg #470348

As long as

it meets the criteria in the California notary handbook, it is state compliant. The NNA just wants everyone to buy their journal in order to fatten their bank accounts which is their intent in everything they do.

Don't let the "non-profit organization" fool you.

I will use the back of a napkin before I would buy a journal from the NNA

My .02

Reply by Yoli/CA on 5/17/13 1:28pm
Msg #470350

Re: As long as

There is no such thing as a "CA state compliant journal." You can use a spiral notebook as your journal provided the entries contain all the elements required per our Handbook.

As Rhonda stated, "Don't let the "non-profit organization" fool you."

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 5/17/13 2:42pm
Msg #470371

Since 2000 I have used a variety of Journals

When stocking my office with supplies, I generally order more than a few of anything I'll need; therefore, I have used a variety f journals - yes, including journals from the NNA.
As long as it conforms to CA notary Law, I use it .
I must have 25-30 used journals. Personally, I do not care where I get them from, just as long as it conforms to CA notary law.

Reply by Notarysigner on 5/17/13 4:26pm
Msg #470383

Ditto! n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/17/13 1:31pm
Msg #470352

I love the the MOjo... BUt... it's true that it is NOT state compliant. Why? Not for the reasons some people might think. Yes, it does have those check boxes and allows for multiple documents to be "checked off" in a single entry... which is against the CA requirement of one line entry per notarial act. That's easy enough work around... just don't use the check boxes. BUT... that requirement is hotly contested by several notaries here, and has been covered well. The primary reason the MoJo isn't Ca compliant is actually a small issue that I think is often overlooked... nowhere in the journal (that I've found) is this requirement (per page 9 of the current handbook):

"A statement that the identity of a person making an acknowledgment or taking an oath or affirmation was based on “satisfactory evidence” pursuant to Civil Code section 1185."

It's that satisfactory evidence statement that appears to be missing. Yes, there is a generic section that allows you to enter identity information, but it does not have the statement that said identity was based on satisfactory evidence pursuant to CC 1185.

I've always felt that NotRot should adjust their journal and make one that is specifically CA compliant. If they did, I'd use them again in a heartbeat. I think they are the best commercial journal on the market.

But the thing is... a lot of mass produced journals lack that. But it's not the journal's fault. IT's up the the individual notary to pick a journal that suits their needs and allows them to comply with state law. Or, frankly... design one themselves that fits their needs. There is NO law that says we have to use any kind or type of journal aside from it being"sequential" and that it contain all of the required information. You can use a spiral bound college-ruled notebook with NKOTB on the cover for all they care, so long as you record everything required. Plus the Sec of State has said they do not endorse or recommend any particular journal.

It *is* possible to use the MoJo in a way that is complaint with CA law... you just don't necessarily use it the way it was designed.

Now that said, I know that Harry has said that he believes the MoJo is compliant with state law. I respectfully disagree with that.

I just wish they'd work with some CA notaries and design a CA specific MoJo... I'd be all over that. As a bonus, I'd love one that is top bound for us poor left-handed folk that struggle with the traditional book binding.

BTW... the NNA put out some nonsense recently implying that certain types of bindings on journals were not state compliant either... they promoted it in this month's magazine as a hotline answer. I called them on that....not surprisingly... they didn't respond. I don't think they like me very much. See: https://www.facebook.com/nationalnotary/posts/10151571746099916

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/17/13 1:39pm
Msg #470355

Let me clarify that when I say that MoJo isn't CA compliant... I meant if it is used in "default" format without modifying it for individual use. I still think it's the best one on the market, even with its' little faults. No journal will be completely perfect unless it is specifically designed to individual stte standards... and even then individual notaries have their own journaling habits, too, that would make the most "legally" compliant journal unusable.

Reply by lucky/ca on 5/18/13 12:35am
Msg #470403

What is MoJo?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/18/13 2:33am
Msg #470407

"MoJo" is a nickname often used to refer to the Modern Journal of Notarial Events, or Modern Journal, sold here through Notary Rotary.

Reply by Harry [NR] on 5/18/13 1:30am
Msg #470405

Marian -

Section 8206(a)(2)(D) does not require the reference to CC Section 1185 as you purport:

"(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."

As such, writing "Identity established by satisfactory evidence" in our Additional Information section is equivalent to the representation made on page 45 of the Secretary of State 2013 Workbook.

As I have previously stated, the Modern Journal is flexible enough to be used in a number of ways. From a design/construction standpoint, a "compliant" journal should be sequentially numbered and permanently bound. Beyond that, it is up to the notary to record everything that is required by law. In a very simple form, such a recording could be made in a sequentially numbered, lined ledger:

1) ____________________

2) ____________________

3) ____________________

Regardless of whose bound, sequentially numbered journal you're using, misuse could result in running amuck of the law. You acknowledge this, but are still hung-up on "compliance." I'm perplexed. Not providing a shortcut or convenience (i.e. checkbox, labeled column, etc.) for every data element required by law is not the same as being non-compliant with state law.

As a side note, I find this pre-occupation with journal bashing positively bizarre. Based on the reports we've been getting, it sounds like extremely blatant anti-competitive behavior. The last time I mentioned it to our attorney, they suggested we start logging all the proclamations of "illegality" people are hearing from certain notary classroom instructors in California in support of future legal action. The M.O. seems the same as it's always been: spread a little fear, uncertainty and doubt to disparage and defame the competition and interfere with their business affairs. The volume seems to have increased recently, so I should probably take up the matter.

Harry
Notary Rotary

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/18/13 2:29am
Msg #470406

"As I have previously stated, the Modern Journal is flexible enough to be used in a number of ways."

I believe I said that same thing.... in fact, I did. I said, "It *is* possible to use the MoJo in a way that is complaint with CA law... you just don't necessarily use it the way it was designed."

We aren't in any disagreement there. There's always a way around a "non-compliant" journal... My only criticism is that the MoJo, as it is designed, encourages notaries in CA to do things that the Sec of State has said we shouldn't be doing. We've seen it here a lot, and I recall you (Harry) specifically stating your position that the one line method was for "...wasteful, impractical fools." (Msg #322514) That's the part I disagree with... because the CA Sec of State clearly has stated what they expect us to do. That's why I feel the way I do, that's all. The checkboxes give notaries the false sense that they *can* combine entries and still be compliant, simply because the design allows for it. The journal is being marketed as "meeting all state requirements..." which I think it a little misleading, IMO. If you're telling CA notaries that to be in compliance, they need to write out the phrase on every entry, it clearly shows that the journal design is not, exactly, "compliant" --- not that there isn't a simple work around... it's just not complaint, on its' face. That's all. I don't think it's a big deal... and is something that could be easily tweaked.

As to this this, "Section 8206(a)(2)(D) does not require the reference to CC Section 1185..."

It requires a "statement" that identity was established through satisfactory evidence. You're right... simply writing that out in the additional information section certainly satisfies the requirement. What I meant was that the MoJo, as it is now, with all of the existing check boxes and other features meant for convenience...this statement, which is required... is something that is clearly absent and, logically, should be there.... otherwise is something many notaries might easily overlook or feel isn't important or required because, let's face it... a lot of notaries don't pay attention to the specific details of what they are supposed to be recording in their journals. Adding that repetitive element to the design might jog their memory or help them be compliant. I know that I *have* seen this statement pre-printed in other commercial journals... many that are no where near as good as the MoJo.

I've always maintained that it's the best one commercially available, IMO. I'm not bashing the MoJo... I really do think it's good... it's just not for me and the way I journal. I wish it were, though!!! Because of CA requirements, the long list of checkboxes is, to me, is a waste of space rather than a useful tool. I think with a few tweaks, you could have one specifically for California.... one that I probably WOULD use.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 5/17/13 1:32pm
Msg #470354

NR journals are great. It does not matter what the little

spaces say. You put in what is required for your state and you are compliant. I have had some NNA journals and they are not 'compliant' either.

Just put the required info and you are good to go. The DA told me my journal was perfection! several months ago when they looked at a line item for a pending law suit some signer was involved in. It was not a 'compliant' journal. BUT my information was compliant.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/17/13 1:43pm
Msg #470357

NNA probably is "pushing hard against" it because it's the best-selling journal out there, and the NNA wants everybody to buy theirs. Which also isn't "compliant" ... not that there is such a thing anyway.

I'm amused by the "freaking out" surrounding CA notary journal-keeping ... especially as compared to the majority of states that don't even require a journal.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/17/13 1:54pm
Msg #470358

"I'm amused by the "freaking out" surrounding CA notary journal-keeping"

I wouldn't call it "freaking out" really... the CA Sec of State has been cracking down on notaries who aren't maintaining proper journals. Remember, in the 2012 newsletter that said that their auditors found that the "vast majority" of notaries aren't keeping proper records or aren't handling their journals properly. They reiterated this in the 2013 newsletter, too, reminding us again about proper procedure.

It's state law... willful failure to maintain our journals properly is a crime... a misdemeanor. It falls under the provision of failure to perform our duties.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/17/13 2:32pm
Msg #470366

Regardless of what you would or wouldn't "call it," ...

... I was quoting from Bip's post. If Bip wants to describe what he has observed as "freaked out" notaries, then I'll take his word for it.

Reply by Bip on 5/17/13 2:06pm
Msg #470359

I have read the law. I do not see where it says a separate line for each entry. The law states "every" and "all" notary acts must be recorded in sequential journal and identifying the notary act. Date, time, reference #, fee, signers identity verification and thumb print where it applies. But, I do not see separate line for each-in the law.
I have seen this stated by some people, but I do not see it worded in the law.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/17/13 2:17pm
Msg #470364

It's been clarified numerous times by the Sec of State. Thre is nothing, that I have found, nor that has been provided to me that supports anything OTHER than one notarial act per line entry. Trust me, I've looked and asked.

In the Fall 2009, a directive was issued by the Sec of State and given to education vendors. The file was posted here by Harry.

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

Specifically page, 4 where is says:

"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. "

In the 2012 Notary Newsletter (page 4), the Sec of State stated that, "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."

That means that the Sec of State's office has expectations of how we maintain our journals and they are AWARE that notaries aren't doing it properly. Again, they said a "large majority" aren't doing it correctly.

Reference: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2012.pdf

They allude to this, again, in the 2013 Newsletter, on page 3:

"Record, without abbreviations, all the information required by law to be recorded for every notarial act. A person may request a copy of one line of a journal page, which would be useless if that line is filled with indecipherable abbreviations. A complete entry is necessary to provide a complete record of the notarial act. California law requires that you record the following in your journal: the date and time of each notarial act; the type of notarial act performed (e.g., jurat, acknowledgment, certified copy of a power of attorney); the type of document notarized (e.g., deed of trust, permission to travel); the signatures of every person whose signature is being notarized; the details of the identification document used to identify the signer of the document notarized, including the type of identification (e.g., driver license, passport), the governmental agency that issued the identification, the serial number on the identification and the date of issue or expiration of the identification; if one or two credible witnesses were used to identify the signer of a document, the name of each credible witness and the details of each credible witness’ identification documents; the fee charged; and, when required, a thumbprint. "

Reference: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2013.pdf

Finally, we have the Sample Workbook, which is published by the Sec of State for educating notaries contains this on page 16, and can be found here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-education-sample-workbook-2013.pdf

"All official acts performed as a notary public must be recorded in the notary public’s active journal at the time the act is performed. The journal entries must be made sequentially by recording each notarial act in order of occurrence one after the other. (California Government Code section 8206(a)(1).)"



Also note in that same workbook, simply writing "loan docs" is NOT OKAY. Per pages 24-25:

"The character of every instrument sworn, affirmed, acknowledged, or proved before the notary public. The “character of every instrument” means the kind or type of document on which the signature is being notarized. Most notarial acts relate to another person signing or certifying a document. A description of the document containing the notarial act must be recorded in the journal in addition to the type of act performed. For example, most signatures on grant deeds are acknowledged. The journal entry for a grant deed will describe the character of the instrument as a “grant deed” and type of notarial act performed as an “acknowledgment.”

If more than one document contains notarized signatures, the notary public must record the title or character of each document. 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).)"


*******
Let's repeat this part from the above paragraphs from a document published by the state:

"If more than one document contains notarized signatures, the notary public must record the title or character of each document. A separate line must be used for each document."
*******

I think that's clear enough.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/17/13 2:38pm
Msg #470368

"I do not see it worded in the law."

That's because it isn't there. I've never been able to find anything in the law either, that states that each entry must be on one line. It's all a matter of how different people interpret it. All required items must be on each line - which means, imo, no ditto marks, no diagonal lines for signatures, etc. If you use one line per signing, the person's signature is there, as is their ID information (which to me seems to be proof of "satisfactory evidence", a step beyond a "statement"). But whether or not your entries are sequential on that line depends on how you fill it in. So, IMO, that's a matter of personal interpretation and judgment - and execution,. most importantly.

I have no doubt that many, many - if not most - journals are not being properly kept. We've heard tales here that would make our hair curl, such as notaries writing "loan docs" instead of listing each one, not writing the type of notarization, not entering ID info, etc., etc. I believe there's a very wide spectrum of infractions when it comes to journal keeping, and while I believe we should all strive to be 100% compliant all the time, I also believe that we shouldn't panic if we fall a hair's breath shy of perfection.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/17/13 2:56pm
Msg #470373

I respect that the law, itself, is written in a way that allows for multiple documents per line. It's a loophole or poorly written. Imagine that... a CA law that is poorly written.

I get that, always have. My problem is in reconciling all of the other written opinions and expectations from the Sec of State where they clearly tell us what they *expect* us to do... and given the sources I posted... clearly tell us one act per line. I've never found ONE written source from their office that indicates using multiple documents in a single entry is okay. I've asked for anyone to supply something to support it. I've not received anything.

I've used this example before to illustrate what I mean. The "LAW" doesn't tell us that we have to use staples to attach loose certificates, either. The Secretary of State told us that in that 2012 newsletter:

"The certificate of acknowledgment [or jurat] must be endorsed on or stapled to the instrument. Taping or paper-clipping the certificate of acknowledgment to the document is not permitted."

So, if they clearly expect us to use staples... yet the "law" only says certificates must be "endorsed on or attached" -- does that mean we're free to use paperclips because we don't agree with their directive regarding staples?

The Sec of State has clearly said they expect one line per act... that's what they expect to see. TO do otherwise is, IMO, playing with fire, especially if you are willfully doing it, knowing they expect otherwise. Why risk going to jail for willful failure to perform your duty?

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 5/17/13 2:46pm
Msg #470372

Oh Bip, we have gone over this at lest a 100 times

I simply state the way I handle this issue - what works for me, but I've never pushed it on anyone.

Reply by Bip on 5/17/13 3:34pm
Msg #470376

Re: Oh Bip, we have gone over this at lest a 100 times

Hi Stephanie,
I just joined this forum, moments ago. I found it so interesting that notaries are chattering here, for the most part, trying to be encouraging and informative.
I had not been party to the other 99 times that this had been discussed. This issue has just recently been brought to my attention and I am trying to keep abreast of the situation.
My son had been battling major illness last year and I spent most of my time running from Dr's to hospitals and not really tracking changes in CA Statutes.
I can see how the old practice of many, with " marks and lines through the journals would come across convoluted and incomplete to the magistrates.
Thanks again

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 5/17/13 4:19pm
Msg #470380

Re: Oh Bip, we have gone over this at lest a 100 times

If I can find it in writing, I will share it in this forum.

Stephanie

Reply by Bip on 5/17/13 2:40pm
Msg #470370

Thank you Marian. That was completely helpful. Sure is an inspiration to design more condensed journals for CA.
I think I will start making my own and then market them..
Very helpful..Thanks again