Posted by CaSigner on 9/17/05 9:09am
Msg #65804

oaths - when is is required

In CA, which papers require you to have the borrower take an oath. I had a borrower confront me on an oath for the DOT. He stated that another notary friend of his said I would be giving him an oath on all papers I notorized. When I didn't perform an oath on the DOT he was not happy. It went down hill from there. I have never, in over two years, give an oath for a DOT. When is it required?

Reply by TinaG_CA on 9/17/05 9:20am
Msg #65805

I have never given an oath either for a DOT. Oaths aren't necessarily state specific. They are usually required by the lender such as the Signature/AKA Affidavit, Compliance Agreement, etc. Sometimes there are jurats sometimes acknowledgements. It just depends on what the lender requires. But I've never seen a jurat required for a DOT.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 9/17/05 12:16pm
Msg #65816

The only time I have ever seen a jurat on a DOT/mortgage and was required to administer an oath, was for Virginia property.

There are two ways in which you can tell if an oath is required on a document.

(1) If there is a jurat attached, which says you placed the signer's under oath (sworn to) and they signed their names (subscribed).

(2) If the opening lines of the document reads something like ".... On this day, before me the undersigned authority duly licensed or commissioned to adminsiter oaths and take acknowledgments, appeared <names of borrowers> who being first duly sworn depose(s) and say(s): ..."

Reply by CaSigner on 9/17/05 12:59pm
Msg #65829

Thanks

Reply by Iris_WA on 9/18/05 10:20am
Msg #65902

Ditto what PAW_Fl said ... UNLESS

in the acknowledgment portion, it adds at the end "... and did not take an oath."

I have mostly seen these coming out of Florida, and once out of California, by the way.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 9/19/05 8:58am
Msg #65997

Re: Ditto what PAW_Fl said ... UNLESS

An acknowledgment never requires an oath. It is simply and "acknowledgment" and "did not take an oath" is typical of acknowledgment certificates. If the document (say an affidavit) starts out "first being duly sworn, deposes and says", would that not state that an oath (or affirmation) must be given, regardless of the certificate on the instrument, or even if one is not present at all? We must look past the notary part and as acting as a signing agent, we must be familiar with the documents in obtaining the signatures properly. If a document requires the signer to be placed under oath, it is the responsibility of the signing agent to have the signer given an oath. Now, a signing agent can't give an oath, but a notary can. Since the signing agent is 99.9999% of the time also a notary, then the signing agent switches hats, dons their notary hat and gives the oath to the signer. Often, as certification that the oath was given, a notary completes a jurat so stating the the signer took an oath and ultimately swears (or affirms) to the contents of the document.

Reply by Iris_WA on 9/19/05 10:01am
Msg #65999

Apparently, a verification upon oath is NOT always that

Saw a discussion on this a few months back and casually read it. THEN the package hit me ... approximately 15 documents within the package to be notarized, all but one of them saying somewhere within either "sworn" and/or "deposed" -- and almost all the notarization blocks, save one (not the same one that did NOT say "sworn" and/or "deposed") did NOT match up and were acknowledgments (ending in "and did not take an oath").

Spent a good few minutes on the phone with the SS over that one! If I recall correctly, only ONE of those 15 documents required a JURAT. The rest were all acknowledgments.

Never want to go there again!

Reply by Kelly M Robertson on 9/19/05 6:45am
Msg #65988

In CA, an Oath or Affirmation is REQUIRED for All Jurats

Your fine if caught not giving an oath or affirmation when completing a Jurat notarization is $750. I make it easy on myself and just give everyone an oath/affirmation no matter what I'm notarizing. You can put your signers under oath at the beginning of the signing, after they've signed or at the end when they sign the journal (making it all kind of ceremonious). s/p

Reply by HisHughness on 9/19/05 2:34pm
Msg #66034

Even though I have done hundreds of closings, I still use a cheat sheet checklist to make sure I have covered everything. The very first item on that checklist is administration of an oath. If it turns out there are no jurats (and I can't recall a single closing where there was not at least one), then all I have done is administer an unnecessary oath. If there are, though, and I have not administered an oath or affirmation, then I have overlooked an essential step.

I think I would rather do something unnecessary that has no impact than not do something necessary that renders a document invalid.

I suspect that a large number of lawyers who prepare title documents don't know the difference between a jurat and an acknowledgment. I occasionally run across documents that have appended both an acknowledgement and a jurat, and lately I have encountered several that have a combination of both. Which harks back to a discussion PAW and I had many months ago, in which he took the position that if the two were combined, earthquakes, floods, cyclones, droughts, plagues and a diminution in the attractiveness of JLo's butt would inevitably render the planet uninhabitable, and I held that there are far more significant things -- like JLo's butt -- to worry about.

It appears I was right. Consequently, I have continued to focus on the finer things in life.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 9/19/05 3:46pm
Msg #66049

Well, as it turns out, the world is being ravaged by earthquakes, floods, cyclones, droughts and plagues (see Threshold!!). The question of the diminution in the attractiveness of JLo's butt inevitably rendering the planet uninhabitable is still up for grabs.