Posted by Charles_CA on 10/11/05 5:17pm
Msg #69938

Ca Notaries, Assembly Bill 361 has been signed!!

New laws starting Jan 2006.

May be charged with a misdemeanor for not controlling you notary stamp

New requirements for Acknowledgment wording.

Under some circumstance you could now be guilty of forgery if you knowingly notarize a document that me be signed by someone signing for someone else

Check it out!

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 10/11/05 5:19pm
Msg #69940

Can I find complete information on the SOS website?

Reply by Charles_CA on 10/11/05 5:23pm
Msg #69942

Frankly I prefer to check on the bills on the legislative website, here are the 2005-2006 bills in numerical order

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/index_assembly_bill_author_topic

Best regards,
Charles

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 10/11/05 5:25pm
Msg #69943

Thank you for the link.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 10/11/05 5:28pm
Msg #69944

I went to the link it's just a listing, no way to click on it to read up on it. Ok Charles I can hear you, it's Google Time.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 10/11/05 5:31pm
Msg #69946

Found it. http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0351-0400/ab_361_cfa_20050622_124037_sen_comm.html

Reply by Charles_CA on 10/11/05 5:28pm
Msg #69945

Revised Bill search address

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bin/port-postquery

Reply by Giselle_CA on 10/11/05 5:37pm
Msg #69947

Re: Revised Bill search address This Link might help.

AB 361

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_361&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 10/11/05 5:37pm
Msg #69948

Re: Revised Bill search address

Charles the link you provided isn't working for me. The one I found doesn't say anything about the acknowledgement wording changing.

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 10/11/05 5:40pm
Msg #69949

Re: Revised Bill search address

Thanks for the link Giselle. Now I have the full text. Time to do some reading.

Reply by Giselle_CA on 10/11/05 6:20pm
Msg #69954

Re: Revised Bill search address

So far:

Misdemeanor:
if willfully fail to perform the duties of a notary public or
failing to keep seal under own control

A court is required now to revoke commissions.

For acknowledgements:

Is the same form as listed on the HB. However, now it has to be that form and not just a suggestion.

Regarding 1189 (B) I would say, if unsure, then use an all purpose.

Any comments on 8225 and 470? I found the amended codes very interesting.

Reply by Gerry_VT on 10/12/05 3:44pm
Msg #70072

Re: Revised Bill search address

Giselle,
About 1189 b, is this the section you mean?

(b) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall
be sufficient in this state if it is taken in accordance with the
laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made.

If so, I think "another place" means someplace outside California, so this section means acknowledgements taken in other states or countries may be used in California, as long as they follow the laws of the other state or country.

Reply by Giselle_CA on 10/12/05 4:50pm
Msg #70087

Re: Revised Bill search address

Hi Gerry, lol No, what I meant was that if in doubt as to what constitutes a proper ack certificate in another state (personally, I am not familiar with all the certificates in all states), then one can attach an all purpose ack.

Also, I was asking for opinions regarding 470 of the penal code since it addresses the "addition" of witnesse's or any other signatures after the fact.

And, 8225 since it was amended regarding any person who solicits, influences, or in any manner influences a np to perform an improper act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and adds under section 8206, which is reg. journal contents, deeds, and copies of pages.

Thanks for your response, Gerry_VT. Hopefully I have made it a little more clear.