Posted by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 9:29pm
Msg #50167

Need help from the 'Big Book' of Notarial Procedures...

We were previously discussing replacing an ack because the stamp was not readable. It was stated that a notary in CA cannot replace the ACK without going again to the borrower... having them acknowledge they signed it and then completing a NEW ack with the current date. My state derives much of it's notarial law from CA and my handbook does not specifically address this issue. I was under the assumption (you know what they say about that) that if an ack had a problem like a smeared stamp or something... I could 're-do' it. I could complete another Ack with the previous date (the date of the original signing) as long as the original document was returned to me... and I attached the new ack myself. I thought that I remembered learning that this is not a backdate... as this is the date they appeared before me... signed the doc... I notarized it and they signed my journal.

I cannot however seem to find any concrete answers in my books... and the answers on this board seem to vary greatly even amongst notaries in the same states.

Does anybody have that book I heard about the other day... the ultimate book of Notorial procedures... I don't know what it was called but maybe it is in there.

My main question is this....

Is 're-doing' an ack OK... generally. If it is OK in the 'Big Book' and my state does not say differently... then I feel I can safely assume it is OK.

I want to know this answer... I just know that now something like this is going to come up next week!!

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 9:39pm
Msg #50170

PAW... can you help me?

I see that the book I am talking about is the one you referred to earlier this week.

"Notary Public Handbook - Principles, Practices & Cases" National Edition, by Alfred E. Piombino.

I ordered it tonight but I'd love to know if it has anything in regards to my Question if you have a chance to look.

Reply by Ernest_CT on 7/6/05 10:26pm
Msg #50185

"Notary Public Handbook" by Piombino

Where did you find you could order it? TIA!

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 10:34pm
Msg #50188

Re: "Notary Public Handbook" by Piombino

http://www.notarypubliclaw.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=NPL&Product_Code=69-5&Category_Code=P

I didn't look around for a better price I just bought it! It didn't seem unreasonable.

Reply by Ernest_CT on 7/6/05 10:46pm
Msg #50194

Thanks! Good deal! n/m

Reply by PAW_Fl on 7/7/05 7:14am
Msg #50240

Re: PAW... can you help me?

I don't remember anything in particular about a "re-do" in the book. However, in FL, there are specific instructions, by statute, which basically says you can't fix it. It must be a re-notarization, which means signer's presence and current date.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 10:00pm
Msg #50176

I'm supposed to be on vacation, taking a well deserved break after end of quarter...here I am back at the 'puter, checking this board (go figure) and have to respond...

First, A, some of my position on this is based on my 8 yrs of being a notary (in CA), some of it common sense, some of it as a result of working for a TC and "closing" and an approach to these things that at least to me, just make sense - without being called jaded or lax in my notary responsibilities.

As I've said before, there's other options for a TC in recording a document where the notary stamp is "unreadable" or more likely, not reproduceable. The TC (title officer) can attach their own 'statement' that lists the notaries name, expiration date of commission, commission number and date of ack. IMO this is the best way - no changes to the ack and the doc gets recorded - end of problem. However, not all TC's avail themselves of this, either they don't know they can do it, or their county recorder doesn't accept it.

Second, I do NOT go for the notion that it is "illegal" or a heinous act to send a loose acknowledgement to replace an ack that can't be used for whatever reason (as long as the reason makes sense to you, the notary, and the request also makes sense). The state of CA has given my some latitude (SOME, before ya'll freak out) in this matter, as a commissioned notary. I've searched both the handbook for CA notaries and the government code and can't find it any language that says I can't send a loose ack without "attaching it myself" to the original document. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I simply can't locate that statement. Supporting my opinion, I don't believe that there is some Escrow officer, wauting in the wings, ready to take my loose ack (that has the borrowers names on it, CORRECT date and references the document I am notarizing/replacing) and ready to attach it to some god-awful illegal document. It's just not logical that somebody is out there waiting to set me up with a loose ack! Seems ridiculous to me.

In the real world, the sale needs to be closed and if the call has been made that YOUR ack is holding matters up, I would accomodate a "reasonable request" to send a loose ack. My call - again, plz correct me if I'm wrong.

Third, I know of no 'big book' on notary procedures, other than what your individual state gives you as reference material (in my state, the handbook, the government code, some civil procedure - and praise God, a number I can call the SOS).

As long as I'm comfortable in sending the loose ack to correct a problem that can't be corrected any other way, I would do it if it makes sense. Many folks on this board seem to do things by "absolutes" and by rote, I just don't do things that way.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 10:15pm
Msg #50180

For Title Gal

We are seeing eye to eye here. I definately don't have even a smidgen of your 8 years experience but I've got a pretty good handle on the law in my state and when I tried to find the concrete answer (that I seemed to remember)... I was stumped??? Go figure?

If you read the thread under #50094 you will see the discussion I am referring to and the start of the mess.

But wait... don't read it. Shut off the computer... slowly exit the room... shut the door... lock it... make a margarita... don't think about the Notary Board!!!!

Reply by Lois/CA on 7/6/05 10:18pm
Msg #50182

Check 1188 of the CA Code.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 10:21pm
Msg #50184

paste and quote it here...I'm on vaca......:) nm

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 10:37pm
Msg #50191

I read 1188... what was it supposed to tell me?

BTW... as I already stated... my state law very clearly states that I cannot send a loose unattached cert. of anything. That is not my ???

My question is specifically in regards to 're-doing' an ack with the date they originally appeared before me.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 10:55pm
Msg #50199

Re: I read 1188... what was it supposed to tell me?

First, you are acknowledging that the signer "personally appeared before you". You are acknowledgeing their ID and signature. My understanding is that they can actually sign a document beforehand (NOT in your presence) and present you with a document they've signed, THEN appear "personally before you". As long as they "personally appear before you" with a signed document, and you can check out the ID and be satisfied as to all the requirements, you can notarize the document (eg. the signature matches what's in your notary journal). When I took my exam many years ago, this was one of the 'trick' questions'. I got it wrong, this is why I remember it!! This is splitting hairs, as most of us as loan signers have the borrowers sign in front of us. All this does for me is re-emphasize the fact that I'm okay in sending a loose ack, in certain and specific occasions, when my 'bad' ack is holding up a closing. (this is NOT in regard to a jurat, a whole different situation).

So...if you "re-do the ack" with the date they originally appeared before you (eg. a new ack), you are fine. This is my logic - again, invite me to think differently. I'm only addressing a difficult, stressful situation when you get the call that your ack is problem in closing the sale.

Now...back to watching "The Pacifier" with my beautiful son who just got discharged recently from serving our wonderful country as an Airman in the USAF....he's getting annoyed with me for running back and forth from the TV to the computer...

Reply by Dogmonger, Ca on 7/7/05 9:29am
Msg #50253

Exact verbage

"An officer taking the acknowledgment of an instrument shall endorse thereon or attach thereto a certificate substantially in the form prescribed in Section 1189.."


I am neither an attorney nor is this intended as legal advice, but it would seem that the operative is endorse OR attach. I would take that to mean that as long as you use a ACK that identified the specific document, number of pages and the date, and I always want to see a copy of the document, that it is perfectly legal to replace a acknowledgement. I have had occasion to do this, last time, a assistant was trimming docs, lost a grip, and cut my seal in half:-) Jmho

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/6/05 10:46pm
Msg #50193

>>As ... there's other options for a TC in recording a document where the notary stamp is "unreadable" or more likely, not reproduceable. ...IMO this is the best way - no changes to the ack and the doc gets recorded - end of problem.... not all TC's avail themselves of this, either they don't know they can do it, or their county recorder doesn't accept it.<<
========
Title Gal, that's a good answer, but not from Tit Legal, I don't trust her! If it's TitleGal telling us that it is one thing...if it's that darned ol' Tit Legal...I'd beware.


Now...in the grand state of Texas, Our
Texas...a DOT can be recorded WITHOUT a
notary seal. The signature of the notary can suffice.

It happens all the time....but I also bet that some county recorders reject them even if the atty gen says it's okay to take them...the local courts do not have to accept the atty gen's opinion.

And, I also agree that the Chicken Little Syndrome proliferates ... it's there to make us think we need fraud prevention tools...electronic things, etc....and it cannot help but make some concerned as we have all actually seen some questionable things.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 11:03pm
Msg #50201

never trust a gal with a rack/legal degree....:)....n/m

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 11:10pm
Msg #50203

Lordy Brenda... are you trying to confuse me??? You were one that seemed to disagree with me in the first place and made me doubt my method of thinking.

And now I am 'subscribing to the Chicken Little Syndrome' and/or 'splitting hairs'. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of an issue which at it's core has BACKDATING written all over it if I am wrong. (Backdating isn't a small issue to me.)

***Finally, my rules say that the ack is dated on the date that the person appeared, so that answers that. New ack/new date.*** This is where I respectfully disagree. I think that a new ack can be done with the original date the person appeared.

***MORAL of the story - do a nice stamp the first time or it can turn into a big mess.*** This is where I respectfully AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

Reply by HisPracticalHughness on 7/6/05 11:23pm
Msg #50206

If a document has not been recorded, I see no problem with attaching a replacement certification -- either jurat or acknowledgment -- that is the same in every particular, including the date, as the earlier document. Nor do I see any problem correcting an unrecorded document that is defective in some way, i.e., smudged seal, missing seal, etc. You have changed nothing in the document execution transaction. The word "anal" comes to mind for those who say that can't be done.

Recorded documents are something different. Then you have what essentially is a subsequent representation by the archivist that the recorded document is precisely the same as it has been since the time of recording. Any new attachments or corrections void that representation.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 11:29pm
Msg #50208

Praise God, and his hughness......

and the reference to 'anal' - and it can be done (replacement certs).

Already recorded docs - a whole other mess, but still "fixable", according to requirements of the county recorder, title insurer, etc.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 7/7/05 7:50am
Msg #50243

This may be fine and good in Texas, and possibly California, but FLORIDA NOTARIES BEWARE.

From the Florida Governor's Reference Manual for Notaries, 2001, pg. 29:

Corrections

When necessary to correct information already printed in the notarial certificate, i.e., the date, the name of the person whose signature is being notarized, do not use correction fluid. Simply mark through the incorrect information and make the change before you complete the notarization. You should probably initial that change, also.

Once you “complete” the notarization and return it to the document signer, you may not amend your certificate. For instance, if you forgot to state the type of identification or affix your seal and the document is returned to you on a later date by the receiving party, you may not correct your error. The document will require re-notarization, including the presence of the document signer.


Florida Statutes 117.107 Prohibited Acts -
(7) A notary public may not change anything in a written instrument after it has been signed by anyone.
(8) A notary public may not amend a notarial certificate after the notarization is complete.

Reply by HisPracticalHughness on 7/7/05 7:58am
Msg #50244

If state law addresses the issue of whether a notarial certificate can be completed, amended or corrected after the signing to carry out the intent of the signing, then state law prevails. In the absence of any specific prohibition, my answer is still that you can do so. The exception, of course, is that the notary cannot change the date.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 10:34am
Msg #50258

Re: That's what I was looking for...

Thank you very much. In the absense of prohibition by the state... can I do something that is reasonable and very much a true statement of the original notorial act? Thank you for your answer! I do know that some states (probably many states) are different... but I was talking about an educated interpretation of the law... or lack of law in my state.

Reply by JanetK/CA on 7/7/05 2:30pm
Msg #50335

Re: That's what I was looking for...

I'm not aware of anything in California notary law that prohibits making a correction to a flawed certificate, but if you take a careful look at the verbiage Dogmonger quoted above, it says "An officer taking the acknowledgment..." may attach, etc. To me that seems to imply that they need to send you the document back for YOU to attach the corrected certificate. That's not a legal judgement, just my personal opinion.

A potential problem with sending a loose certificate by itself (to my knowledge...) could come into play if, for example, there was a document left out of a package that needed notarizing and the escrow person didn't want to pay the notary to go back out there (or perhaps had the borrower come in to sign it without personally appearing before the notary for that doc) and somehow got ahold of an extra stamped and signed ack. It may be far fetched, but we know weird things happen all the time. Another reason to be sure the certficate includes information that specifically ties it to a certain document. Again, JMHO...

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 11:25pm
Msg #50207

NO backdating....

***Finally, my rules say that the ack is dated on the date that the person appeared, so that answers that. New ack/new date.***

You are absolutely right. No backdating. In the case you originally described you are REPLACING an ack with a new ack for the date the person appeared. No brain surgery there, and no backdating.

New ack, date they appeared; or new ack, new date IF YOU INSISTED THEY REAPPEAR!!! (this is key in this situation) In your first scenario, you are simply correcting a mistake, a bad stamp, and replacing the ack, so the document can record. If you insist on the borrowers standing before you AGAIN, a new date is necessary.

Again, and please somebody correct me if I'm wrong, there is nothing wrong with sending a loose ack to fix a problem that you didn't do during the first "appearance" eg. the bad stamp. As loan signers, we can split hairs to the point of not getting work - but we can't ignore what our commission requires. The flip side is that we don't satisfy our commission status, and that is a worse problem.

Somebody else please comment on this - I feel really, really certain about this in my commission as a notary - I'd invite some legal language to say I'm not right about this...

Dam, the Pacifier is about over now...son is not happy....

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 11:37pm
Msg #50213

Re: NO backdating....

BTW... it was not my original issue. I was trying to prevent Merry from having to go back to the borrowers as she felt she was instructed to do by the CA SOS. I was in disagreement... considering the circumstances.

As for your question... All I know is my state law...

"A Notary may never sign and/or seal certificates ahead of time or permit other persons to attach loose notorial certificates to documents. Nor should the notary send unattached, signed and sealed, loose certificates through the mail, even if requested to do so by a signer who previously appeared before the notary. These actions may facilitate fraud or forgery and they could ...blah blah blah"

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 11:45pm
Msg #50216

Re: NO backdating....

***ahead of time or permit other persons to attach loose notorial certificates to documents. Nor should the notary send unattached, signed and sealed, loose certificates through the mail, even if requested to do so by a signer who previously appeared before the notary. These actions may facilitate fraud or forgery and they could...blah***

All the hair splitting can always be figured out (ahem, sometimes) by a court of law. Angelina, for the purposes of this board, all you can do what is recommended by your state. For the purposes of this board, I'm posting as to what my interpretation of my state's requirements are, and what I feel comfortable doing.

Again, I seriously doubt some escrow officer is waiting to commit some awful fraud by attaching my loose cert. to a whole new set of documents (by the same signers) to futher him/herself, and commit fraud, that I know nothing about.

Again, in my (albeit small mind) it's a big reach, and I'd rather facilitate the closing, than hold it up.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/6/05 11:56pm
Msg #50218

Re: NO backdating....

Somebody SHOOT ME! I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!

Yes my state law says something different about attaching vs. mailing separate but that was not even the question.

The main argument was that I was trying to get across to Merry was that based on previous posts by you and Calinotary... I did not think she needed to go back to the borrowers. Some others disagreed saying that you have to go back and I encouraged her to look it up again.

If they sat in front of you and signed then what's the difference. Re-do the damn ack for the previous date and it is valid.

Brenda and a few others disagreed with me which (as I respect her and her experience) made me doubt myself. I then tried to find something to give me more info and I'M GOING TO GO COMMIT SUICIDE NOW!

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/7/05 12:06am
Msg #50219

Agreeing with me...dear god you're in trouble....

***Re-do the damn ack for the previous date and it is valid***

That is EXACTLY what I would do. Please don't go commit suicide, or my gosh, I'm so wrong (and I hate when that happens). And I think, for what it's worth, you were right on in your advice to Merry - the bad news is I think each states SOS leaves some things up to the notary. That's the hard part.

The Pacifier is over. My son is disgusted and thinks I'm wierd. (so do I for that matter).

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 12:17am
Msg #50220

Re: Agreeing with me...dear god you're in trouble....

No suicides here... I settled on death by Budweiser. If you take a look at post 50094 and responses you will see what I was referring to. I know that her SOS gave her an answer but I felt (in my humble opinion) that she asked the wrong question.

She said they referred her back to the statement of 'appeared before me' and from that she derived that she should return to the borrower. Unless there was more in the conversation... I didn't come to the same conclusion. Appeared before me... yup... stamp... sign... send!

Reply by William/CA on 7/7/05 11:52am
Msg #50274

Re: Agreeing with me...dear god you're in trouble....

The SOS answered the question correctly to Merry. The clerks try not to get into UPL that is why they probably handled it that way. The person needs to appear before you at the time you are filling out a certificate. When you filled out one that the stamp didn't come out on, that was one appearance. When you put your stamp to a 2nd certificate are you going to swear in a court of law that the borrowers was in appearance. You are probably thinking, how are they going to know. Why chance it?

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 12:29pm
Msg #50295

Re: Agreeing with me...dear god you're in trouble....

Well William I think this has been debated to death. If I get a call today that a notarization I did on 6/25 (where the borrowers obviously sat in front of me and signed) had a smeared stamp. IN MY STATE... I would get the doc back... void the old ack... complete a new one with the date the borrowers sat in front of me... which would be 6/25... attach it and send it to them pronto. I could swear in a court of law that the ack accurately states the actions of the borrowers and myself and the correct date of the signing, acknowledgement and notarization. The ack itself DOES NOT HAVE A DATE... it states the date the borrowers sat in front of you... which would be 6/25.

This is my interpretation of the law in my state and I feel comfortable that I am working within the parameters of the law.

I sincerely regret saying anything to Merry... as I am not in CA. Even though I believe that the interpretation of CA law is much the same, and I remembered a previous discussion of experienced CA notaries on the subject... I should have stayed out of it.

Now I'm late... see ya later.

Reply by BrendaTX on 7/7/05 12:34am
Msg #50224

Re: NO backdating....

***Brenda and a few others disagreed with me which (as I respect her and her experience)***

Angelina, my rules are not specific like Sylvia's are in FL, but what is in the rules is all I can go by, and what's not there I dare not even breathlessly consider....

While I am most certainly a shy and retiring, demure Texas widow, I do not own a bass boat nor a liquor store so I cannot look to the resident lawyer with hot pants to fix things if I get my bosom in a legal notary rule wringer.

Therefore, I have devoted myself to foregoing any engagement of common sense on any notarial matter. Just the facts, ma'am...and after that, I pick up the phone and call the lovely and ever popular Dora in Austin at the SOS office.

Aren't you glad you asked?

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 12:52am
Msg #50226

Re: NO backdating....

Well that's exactly why I asked for information from the 'Notary Bible' in the first place. I wanted to see if there was 'common procedure' that could be deferred to if my state chose to be non-specific. The only thing AZ says is 'don't send it alone' but it doesn't even touch on the issue of a redo with a previous date. I thought I was safe to assume one thing and your answer made me think twice about it. I lean a little more toward 'just the facts' as well so I thought it best to try to find something to back up my opinion. I like things to be cut and dry... I am comfortable with that... so I started the mess and strangely enough... I still don't have an answer to the question I originally asked. I guess I'll just get the book in the mail.

Didn't I say I was going to bed?

Reply by William on 7/7/05 12:10pm
Msg #50280

Re: NO backdating....

Do you think 'don't send it alone' means to attach it to the document with the orginal signature?

Reply by HisHughness on 7/7/05 11:02am
Msg #50263

Re: NO backdating....

Brenda coyly demurs:

***I cannot look to the resident lawyer with hot pants***

Exactly who here is supposed to have the hotpants, Brenda: the lawyer or you?

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 7/6/05 11:39pm
Msg #50214

Re: NO backdating....

Florida law is specific on this. We cannot "fix" a problem with a certificate, we have to return to the signer and do the notarization over again.

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/6/05 11:46pm
Msg #50217

Re: NO backdating....

Perfect point. It has to do with your own state, and what your own state's commission makes you comfortable in doing.

Reply by William on 7/7/05 12:56am
Msg #50227

Re: NO backdating. per SOS investigator...

CA does not have anything in the handbook that allows for "Correcting" any notarial certificate. I have spoken with the investigator of the Notary division at the SOS. There is no such thing as correcting a certificate. It is a new certificate, as such needs to be done in the in front of the person who has signed the document and date it the same day the stamp hits the certificate. We can all make up reasons as to why it is O.K. to "Correct" a certificate, this doesn't mean it will hold up in a court of law.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 1:11am
Msg #50230

Re: NO backdating. per SOS investigator...

The way that I look at it. I am not correcting anything. I am attesting to something that happened just as it is stated on the cert.

**On _____ day of ______, 2005 before me personally appeared __________________**

If they personally appeared before you on June 25th and originally signed the doc for you... it stands to reason that you could attach a new cert with this same info if there was a small problem, like a smeared stamp, on the first one.

Now some certs include the word "this". EX. On this ____ day of ______, 2005 personally... (this gives the impression that the statement is being made today) but now we ARE splitting hairs.

Is there something that states "the same day the stamp hits the certificate" in writing? Or is it... "the day the signer sat in front of you"?

Reply by BrendaTX on 7/7/05 12:19am
Msg #50221

*Lordy Brenda... are you trying to confuse me??? * yes!

j/k...

No, A...I was not even close to thinking of you when I said Chicken Little...and I don't think I said anything about a hair....

Chicken little refers to the remark Sue made about the evil escrow officer theory.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 12:31am
Msg #50223

Re: *Lordy Brenda... are you trying to confuse me??? * yes!

No, the hair comment was somebody else. This is a classic example of why I stick to jokes and stories and save my advice for my four year old. And to think that most of my signings (minus boogers, sheep and dog poop) go incredibly smooth.

Me and my Budweiser are going to bed now.

BTW... it was your post 50161 that totally threw me. 'New Ack/New Date' and 'Not Discussed in the Lawbook so Not an Option' made me go... huh??? what??? oh crap!!!

Reply by CarolynCO on 7/7/05 8:56am
Msg #50248

In Colorado CRS 12-55-112 concerning illegibility - "State law provides that an instrument notarized with an illegible seal being affixed is still valid, provided all other requirements have been met." With that said, last Thursday, I was contacted by a California TC refusing three of my seals. The paper the loan docs were printed on was a really funky onion skin type bond paper. I ended up attaching two loose certificates during the signing because the ink seeped through the paper and smeared the seal. Before sending the original loan package off, I reviewed all my seals and felt that they were all legible. However, the title company felt differently.

They faxed me the three in question. One was iffy, and I still feel the other two were okay, but since the loan was for a purchase, and the borrower was moving to California, leaving Colorado on Friday and planning on moving in over the 4th of July holiday, I didn't want to hold up the process. I overnighted for Friday morning delivery three loose certificates, dated the date of the original signing including verbiage "This certifificate is attached to such and such document dated such and such date, such and such number of papers, signed by such and such borrower, ..."

As TitleGal does, I was comfortable with sending the loose acknowledgments to correct a problem that couldn't be corrected in any other way.

Reply by William on 7/7/05 12:40am
Msg #50225

How do you interrupt your handbook on 14-12a-11 (A) & (C)?

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 1:00am
Msg #50228

Just cut and paste it William... or give a link. n/m

Reply by William on 7/7/05 1:13am
Msg #50231

Re: Just cut and paste it William... or give a link. n/m

Don't you have a copy of AZ notary handbook.

Reply by AngelinaAZ on 7/7/05 1:14am
Msg #50232

Re: Just cut and paste it William... or give a link. n/m

Yes but I'm tired so why don't you give me the page number?

Reply by William on 7/7/05 1:20am
Msg #50233

Re: Just cut and paste it William... or give a link. n/m

Sorry wrong code, I'M trying to look it up.

Reply by William on 7/7/05 2:03am
Msg #50236

Re: Just cut and paste it William... or give a link. n/m

You are filling out a cert, 41-319 Journal says the date of the notarial act. It doesn't say the date of an act you want to correct. It says nothing about correcting an act. Filling out this cert is a notarial act. This section also says "the notary shall record all notarial act in chronological order." It also states you must have the signature of the person.

41-313 Also states that the notaries duties are to take acknowledgements and give certificates of the acknowledgments endorsed on or ATTACHED to the instrument. It doesn't say send it and let the person receiving it attach it.

In CA the Investigator for the notary division main investigation are title offices and real estate offices. They do investigate complaints of notaries. A couple of years ago the 5 title companies were fined Millions of dollars because of illegal practices.

I know myself I have been called by title companies, SS companies and LO to do illegal things. Call your state ask for guide lines.

Have you ever read the Model Notary Act?

Read page 4.

This is another one that is good to read

Notary Code of Responsibility

You can find them both on the NNA website. Don't get turned off because it is on the NNA website. Read the list of different person who contributed to it.