Posted by ERNA_CA on 4/23/05 4:59am
Msg #33476

Anyone seen this before?

Attached to limited power of attorney to correct documents, was following wording to be notarized.
on 22nd day of April, 2005 personally came John Doe and I have made known to him the contents of this agreement and having personally satisfied myself on the basis of sufficient evidence that he is the person signing above executed the same as his volumtary act and deed.
What would you do?
Add the corect wording?
Attatch a loose leaf?
Thank you

Reply by BrendaTX on 4/23/05 7:03am
Msg #33481

Sounds like a lawyer got his/her hands on the dictating equipment.

If it were in Texas, I'd attach a Texas ack.

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/23/05 12:52pm
Msg #33538

Exactly what I want to do. I did send them an email asking if it is ok to swap out with a Ca ack, no response as yet. Just wonder if they will have a hissie fit if I swap out their paperwork. I am just not comfortable with the wording just dose not look like it complies with CA law.

Reply by CA_Jeanet on 4/23/05 2:47pm
Msg #33544

If the notarial wording does not comply with CA notarial wording, I write in at the bottom: See Attached Certificate, and attach a loose leaf certificate. CA is quite clear about notarial wording. I call my contact if it's a first time signing to explain CA notarial wording, and they always tell me to comply with our state's laws and to strike out the pre printed wording.

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/23/05 3:57pm
Msg #33554

Thank you for your imput. I attatched a loose leaf and I did send them an email to make them aware of the problem. I have done sevral signings for this lender but I have never seen this before.

Reply by Simone E. Lewis on 4/23/05 4:27pm
Msg #33556

Here is what I found. Just my opinion. The way I read this is.
In this case, you(the notary) would have to determine that he knows the contents of this agreement since you have made known to him the content .

Effective January 1, 1997, law permits California Notaries to uses an out of state acknowlegement form on a document that will be filled in that other state or jurisdiction, but only if "the form does not require the notary to determine or certify that the signer hold a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifiaction not allowed by California law" (Civil code Section 1189){c}).

P. S. The all purpose acknowlegment is mandatory for all acknowlegment taken in the state, whether the acknowleger is signing as an individual or representative(partner, corporate office, attorney-in-fact, trustee, etc.)

Reply by Happy_in_Fl on 4/23/05 4:59pm
Msg #33564

Erna- I had two loan packages this week with this same document - reading just about the same as I remember, but did not see any wrong in it.

However with the instructions from some Lenders comes the warning that NO changes are allowed on the documents at all- so changing wording would not be an option, in my opinion.

In fact warning label attached said we are to be Witnessing the Borrowers signatures and verifying IDs only- answering no questions at all- saying they have to call their Loan Officer etc.

Had one Lender require Borrowers initial the RTC dates , and of course sign below where required. (That was a first as well for me to see).

I went with the document as worded, and feel comfortable with that; guess I'll wait and see if it comes back to bite me.

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/24/05 3:11am
Msg #33618

I was not comfortable with it as it will be recorded in CA and dose not comply with CA jurat wording. To me it looks like something a lawer might do, I cant see how I can take on the resposablility of making sure that the borrowers know what the document means, way out of the scope of witnessing a signature.

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/24/05 3:44am
Msg #33619

Re: Anyone seen this before? CA Code 8202

CA Code 8202 reads.
a. When executing a jurat, a notary shall administer an oath or affirmation to the affiant and shall determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence as described in section 1185 of the civil code, that the affiant is the person executing the document. The affiant shall sign the document in the presence of the notary.
b. To any affidavit subscribed and sworn to before a notary, there shall be attached a jurat in the following form:
State of California
County or______
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this ___ day of ____. 20__. By______. Personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

Seal___________
Signature____________
The code is clear, dose not say that other wording is exceptable. I did attatch a loose leaf I would rather have the lender object than loose my commission.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 4/24/05 12:50pm
Msg #33639

Re: Anyone seen this before? CA Code 8202

yup it's the CA law for jurat's for 2005. Must prove identity.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 4/24/05 12:51pm
Msg #33640

Re: Anyone seen this before? CA Code 8202

Do you need a 2005 jurat, I could e-mail you one if you would like...

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/24/05 2:28pm
Msg #33647

Re: Anyone seen this before? CA Code 8202

Sara I wasn't looking for a jurat, see first message. If I didn't have the jurat yet I would be in hot water

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 4/24/05 3:39pm
Msg #33653

Re: Anyone seen this before? CA Code 8202

oh yeah the wording on the first one definately didn't comply with CA. My responce was only directed to the new jurat laws and wording. I thought I'd offer it too you just in case. Yep we would be in hot water if we didn't have the right one.

Oh I think we are neighbors. I'm in the High Desert.

Reply by CA Notary on 4/24/05 5:06pm
Msg #33669

Re: Anyone seen this before? CA Code 8202

I looked at the original message from Erna and don't see anything about what was written that showed it was a jurat. There is no language that says "sworn and subscribed to". Why did you attach a Jurat and not an Acknowledgment?

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/24/05 10:22pm
Msg #33713

Re: SarahBeth

Yes I am in the high desert, there are quit a few of us up here. I am in Victorville. Where are you?

Reply by Jon on 4/24/05 8:24pm
Msg #33686

The afore mentioned document needs an acknowledgement, not a jurat. The wording used to be for an ack, but they changed it about 5 yrs ago, don't know why. Attach a loose leaf.

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/24/05 10:12pm
Msg #33708

I did attach an all purpose acknovledgement.

Reply by CA Notary on 4/24/05 10:17pm
Msg #33712

If you attached an acknowledgment, then why did you say it did not comply with California Jurat wording?

Reply by BrendaTX on 4/24/05 8:43pm
Msg #33689

Jon, How did you know that? Just curious...

Reply by BrendaTX on 4/24/05 8:43pm
Msg #33690

Jon-the msg above was meant for you. n/m

Reply by Jon on 4/24/05 9:00pm
Msg #33694

I used to do signings for Ditech when they first opened their doors, before the GMAC buyout, even before they went public. I actually remember going to their offices to pick-up docs and chatting with the loan officers and processors, before they got their own floors.

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/24/05 10:29pm
Msg #33715

I gusse my point is that the wording is confusing. Should they be swearing to the fact that they anderstand the document after I make the contents of the agreement known to them or is it a simple aknowlegement made complicated by the wording?

Reply by CA Notary on 4/24/05 10:32pm
Msg #33716

Re: Anyone seen this before? - Erna

So did you attach an acknowledgment or a jurat? It clearly does not say "sworn to"

Reply by ERNA_CA on 4/24/05 10:35pm
Msg #33717

Re: Anyone seen this before? - Erna

I attatched an all purpose acknowledgment