My thought is that the notarial certificate should let a person who wasn't there for the signing know what actually happened. Using "Mary Doe and Mary Roe" for the name and "they" for the pronoun gives the idea that two different people appeared. Using two separate certificates, one for "Mary Doe" and one for "Mary Roe", also gives the impression two different people appeared. If the document has separate signature lines for "Mary Doe" and "Mary Roe", that reinforces the impression that two people appeared before the notary.
Using "Mary Doe a.k.a. Mary Roe" in the name blank and "she" for the pronoun conveys the correct idea of what happened; one person appeared before the notary. The phrase "by her signature(s) on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument" in the CA notary certificate takes care of the fact that Mary might have been signing in several different capacities (and the CA notary wouldn't be asking her about what capacities she might or might not be signing in).
Of course, LKT/CA is correct that few if any states have laws or official rules that cover such subtle points, and the notary has to come up with a defensible position. Additionally, the entity that is going to receive the document may or may not have a sensible requirement. |
Messages in this Thread |
| Something new for me. - Belinda/CA on 1/7/17 11:32am |
| Re: Something new for me. n/m - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 11:59am |
| This is very common for me in commercial loan signings - ananotary on 1/7/17 12:06pm |
| Re: Something new for me. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 12:08pm |
| You are over thinking it. It's not uncommon for one document - ananotary on 1/7/17 12:10pm |
| Re: You are over thinking it. It - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 12:26pm |
| Got it. I would have provided two so I guess we agree. n/m - ananotary on 1/7/17 12:49pm |
| Yes, agreed...separate certs in CA n/m - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 1:48pm |
| LKT , what CA code states that? - rengel/CA on 1/8/17 1:30pm |
| Re: LKT , what CA code states that? - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 1:54pm |
| Re: LKT , what CA code states that? - VT_Syrup on 1/8/17 2:45pm |
| Brilliant, VT Syrup!! - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 3:33pm |
| Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - BobbiCT on 1/7/17 12:55pm |
| Very common in CA also. n/m - ananotary on 1/7/17 1:25pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 6:21pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - VT_Syrup on 1/7/17 6:33pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 8:58pm |
| Re: Very common in Trusts & Estates world .. - LKT/CA on 1/7/17 9:23pm |
| I'm sorry, but I agree with what VT was getting at - Linda_H/FL on 1/8/17 8:05am |
| Re: I - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 9:44am |
| Re: Something new for me. - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 12:02am |
| Wait - I have a question... - Linda_H/FL on 1/8/17 9:48am |
| Yep, Linda is correct - Blueink_TN on 1/8/17 9:55am |
| Re: Wait - I have a question... - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 10:41am |
| Re: Wait - I have a question... - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 10:44am |
| One FINAL thought - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 10:58am |
| Re: One FINAL thought - ananotary on 1/8/17 11:26am |
| Re: One FINAL thought - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 12:32pm |
| Re: One FINAL thought - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 11:43am |
| Re: One FINAL thought - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 12:35pm |
| Oh Lordy. n/m - ananotary on 1/8/17 12:52pm |
| Re: I agree we have agreed the whole time-lol n/m - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 1:04pm |
| Right? I even have a post above saying that. I guess the - ananotary on 1/8/17 1:09pm |
| Again, where is the CA code that you are talking about? - rengel/CA on 1/8/17 1:47pm |
| Re: Again, where is the CA code that you are talking about? - LKT/CA on 1/8/17 1:57pm |
| Re: Ca code section 1193 - Laurie Manzanares on 1/8/17 9:01pm |
| Re: Ca code section 1193 - VT_Syrup on 1/9/17 8:58am |
| Re: Wait - I have a question... - linda/ca on 1/9/17 6:21pm |
| Re:Correction...should have spelled separate, not seperate. n/m - linda/ca on 1/9/17 6:24pm |
| Re: Something new for me. - Donna LaBelle on 1/8/17 2:37pm |
| Surprised how many notaries are not commenting. - Belinda/CA on 1/8/17 5:36pm |
| Well, I've been pretty busy filling sandbags and putting - Cheryl Elliott on 1/9/17 8:18am |
| Re: Well, I*ve been pretty busy filling sandbags and puttin - VT_Syrup on 1/9/17 9:07am |
| Re: Well, I*ve been pretty busy filling sandbags and puttin - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 4:47am |
| I do exactly as Cheryl. One acknowledgement - garland/CA on 1/10/17 1:50pm |
| Re: Something new for me. - jojo_MN on 1/8/17 7:20pm |
| Me too JoJo, but they can't use the capacity in CA.. n/m - Linda_H/FL on 1/8/17 7:48pm |
| Re: Something new for me. - JanetK_CA on 1/9/17 1:50am |
| Here's the California SOS language from handbook - Cheryl Elliott on 1/9/17 8:53am |
| It is very common in commercial loan signings for one person - ananotary on 1/9/17 11:03am |
| Re: It is very common in commercial loan signings for one person - JanetK_CA on 1/9/17 3:02pm |
| Thanks all. - Belinda/CA on 1/9/17 9:43pm |
| Re: Thanks all. - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 7:45am |
| Irrelevent - ananotary on 1/10/17 10:08am |
| Bingo! - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 11:59am |
| Yikes, we are all speaking to our experience - ananotary on 1/10/17 12:02pm |
| Re: Yikes, we are all speaking to our experience - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 12:51pm |
| It is common in commerical loans. It doesn't mean - ananotary on 1/10/17 1:23pm |
| Nope, won't accept as rhetorical.... - LKT/CA on 1/10/17 8:02pm |
| OK, you win. I should have stopped a LONG time ago. - ananotary on 1/10/17 11:16pm |