Posted by Anonymous on 1/5/06 11:54pm
Msg #86501

I have to notarize a "Release from Lien" /Calif

I looked at the loan documents for tomorrow's signing and and the 2nd page of the "Release of Lien" has Jurat verbiage and below the Jurat has separate Acknowledgment verbiage. I called the company that hired me to ask them which one do they want filled out and no one is available.

I don't think this is legal in Calif.
Any suggestions as what I should do? I will call the company that hired me again tomorrow and hope I get this rectified. I don't want to blow this as it pays $200.
This document will be recorded in our state/Ca

Reply by John_NCal on 1/6/06 12:38am
Msg #86505

Why do you think it is illegal? I have placed liens on properties myself as the lienor and later initiated a release of lien. In each case I used an acknowledgement not a jurat, but that was my choice. They were recorded and filed.

If your confusion is in the jurat and or acknowledgement used, then you do need to have the title company specify which one they want used. They should have specified the correct form in the first place.

Reply by CA_Jeanet on 1/6/06 12:55am
Msg #86507

Whenever jurat verbage is used, I cross out the other verbage and atttach a loose CA Jurat certificate and have never had any complaints. They don't always know the correct form to use for our state, even though they should, so we should know our own state laws well.

Reply by NorCalDar on 1/6/06 12:59am
Msg #86509

John_NCal is on the mark. You need to find out which notorial wording is needed by asking the company that hired you. I wouldn't worry about messing it up by asking but I would worry about messing it up by not asking and not getting it right.

Reply by Anonymous on 1/6/06 1:03am
Msg #86510

My question should have been

Is this common on a Release of Lien in Calif to have both Jurat and Ack. verbiage on the same page?

Reply by NorCalDar on 1/6/06 1:09am
Msg #86512

Re: My question should have been

Doesn't matter whether or not it is common. You can only do one or the other and it's not up to you to decide which one to choose. I'll bet that one if not both of the notorial wordings that they provided you fall short of the CA requirements. Does the jurat contain the affiant statement? Is the Acknowledgement for consistant with the new sec 1189 requirements?

Reply by Anonymous on 1/6/06 1:57am
Msg #86515

Both are absolutely compliant

Both the Jurat requirments (2005) and the new (2006) Ack. verbiage are in place for this "Release from Lien."

Reply by Anonymous on 1/6/06 2:03am
Msg #86516

Re: Both are absolutely compliant

Question: Do Release from Liens in Ca have a Jurat certificate and an Acknowledgment certificate on the same page that needs to be notarized?

Reply by NorCalDar on 1/6/06 2:59am
Msg #86517

Re: Both are absolutely compliant

Please email me at darin@ideal-service so we can talk off the board.

Reply by PattiCA on 1/6/06 9:47am
Msg #86558

Why would the borrower need to sign the release from lien. Are you sure that they are signing it? is there a place for anothers signature (say someone from the lending company)? If the borrowers are not signing that document, then I wouldn't notarize it.

Reply by O/CNotary on 1/6/06 11:03am
Msg #86605

I once saw a post on this bd from someone very knowledgable

that it is legal to do both an Ack and Jurat for the same doc. I was surprised to see this but is it possibly true? It was posted by a FL notary. I wont mention the name in case I misunderstood the post.

Reply by NorCalDar on 1/6/06 11:13am
Msg #86612

Don't know about FL but in CA...

In CA at the very least the document would have to be signed twice. Once for the Jurat and once for the Acknowledgement. It would be improper to have two stamps and only one signature.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 1/6/06 11:22am
Msg #86618

Re: I once saw a post on this bd from someone very knowledga

Since there are major differences between the purpose of a jurat and an acknowledgment, there are some documents that contain both. Reason being, that the signers are certifying certain items to be true (jurat required) and that they need to perform some duties or functions in the performance of the instrument (acknowledgment). Though I've only seen this situation maybe twice, it is possible and necessary to have both types of certificates on one instrument. Unfortunately, some attorneys like to combine both into one certificate (commonly referred to as a hybrid), which cannot be done. So two separate and distinct certificates are required for the two separate and distinct functions.

Reply by O/CNotary on 1/6/06 11:51am
Msg #86638

OK, now I can come clean, it was PAW whose post I read and

I thank you PAW for reiterating!