Posted by MikeC/NY on 12/4/06 7:02pm
Msg #163840

What do I do with this one?

I have a signing scheduled for tomorrow; received the docs today. Among them was one I'm not quite sure what to do with...

It's called an Affidavit of Common Identity, and has two venues. Property is located in a different county, same state. At the top of the page, it says State of NY, County of Kings (which is where the property is). It then says: "Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared John Doe, who after being duly sworn deposes and says that he is one and the same person as:", followed by a couple of AKAs; below that is a signature line for John Doe.

Below THAT is another venue (which is where the signing will occur), and the notarial wording is an acknowledgement, not a jurat. Plus, I'll have to attach a loose certificate, because there's no room for my stamp.

What the heck am I notarizing here? It looks like it should be a jurat ("duly sworn", but since the printed notarial wording is definitely NOT a jurat, I'm going to attach a loose acknowledgement. Has anyone seen one of these before? What do I do about the first venue - change it, or leave it alone? Doesn't an affidavit generally require a jurat? Is this an example of the infamous "jurad/acknowledgement" from an earlier thread?

Any guidance would be appreciated...

Reply by SarahBeth_CA on 12/4/06 7:20pm
Msg #163843

Call the hiring entity and ask

Better to call and get clarification than do the wrong thing which could possibly include upl.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 12/4/06 8:14pm
Msg #163850

Not all affidavits are notarized

Sworn statements can be non-notarized as well.
I see them all the time.
SarahBeth is right, for clarification, you need the input of the company rep that hired you.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/4/06 8:14pm
Msg #163851

Re: Call the hiring entity and ask

I am planning on doing that in the morning - thought I might get some feedback first from others who may have seen a similar doc... Not a question of UPL, the notarial wording is clearly an acknowledgement and that's what I'll do unless instructed otherwise by the TC. I would definitely never make that call on my own. The document just doesn't make sense to me, and I was hoping someone here could explain it.

Reply by Cam/CA on 12/4/06 8:18pm
Msg #163854

Mike let me know what they say

I had something similar last week. Hiring party was on the East Coast and no one answered the after hours number, haven't heard anything back so I am hoping what I did was okay.

Reply by kathy/ca on 12/4/06 8:47pm
Msg #163857

Mike, I had 1 of these last week, called the TC, they said

it required both an ack and a Jurat. It is similar to the Sig/AKA stmt. I am not making a recomendation, just telling you what I was told.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/4/06 10:34pm
Msg #163871

Thanks, Kathy

I'll check with the TC in the morning. Wording looks like it may need both, but I'll let that be their call.

Reply by Ndwa on 12/5/06 4:42am
Msg #163890

John Doe sworn before you at the venue shown on top (true/false?) that the AKAs are him, but he only signed acknowledging what's type-written on the document (hence: He did not subsribed to the fact).

Reply by kathy/ca on 12/5/06 9:18am
Msg #163945

Andy, which certs would you have used, both or ???? n/m

Reply by MikeC/NY on 12/5/06 9:53am
Msg #163948

And the answer was...

TC never saw one like this either, and couldn't figure out what they were trying to accomplish with it. She said to change the top venue, don't worry about whether a jurat was required, and notarize it the way it's written - as an acknowledgement. At least they're aware that the doc is a little funky, so I don't expect a call telling me I screwed it up.