Posted by Marshall on 10/9/06 6:35pm
Msg #151219

New....help!

Hello everyone! I'm new and don't notarize much and need some help. I have a gentlemen who has a non-notorial document that he signed a few years back but now wants to prove that he signed it and wants me to notarize this document for him. Now the question is, can I notarize this even though it was already previously signed? I know that acknowledgments can be signed before hand but what about in this case? Is this something that I can attach an acknowledgment since he would be acknowledging that he did infact sign it in the years past? This doesn't sound right to me but I just thought I would ask the pro's and see if anyone has come across something like this.

Reply by PJM/MI on 10/9/06 6:36pm
Msg #151222

Hey Marshall... you didn't say what state you're in...but there's a BIG chance the doc will have to be re-signed in your presence and notarized as such.

Reply by Marshall on 10/9/06 6:39pm
Msg #151223

I'm from California.....Yeah it doesn't sound right .....but it does have the printed and hand written dates on the documents so I was a little confused as to if I could do it.

Reply by PJM/MI on 10/9/06 6:40pm
Msg #151225

I hope a CA veteran can help you out on this. CA notaries?

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/9/06 6:44pm
Msg #151226

Marshall, he wants to acknowledge he signed the document before a notary. Show him the two forms and let him decide which one after he reads the two of them.

I don't know about your state, but in Texas, I can't see there will be a problem.

Reply by Jason on 10/9/06 7:15pm
Msg #151234

A solution

have him write and sign a jurat about his past sig

Don't forget to give oath

Reply by Marshall on 10/9/06 7:27pm
Msg #151240

Re: A solution

I was thinking the same thing. I was going to have him write and sign a letter stating that he did infact sign the document on the date mentioned on the original document then use my jurat stamp......Sound right????

Reply by Charles_Ca on 10/9/06 7:28pm
Msg #151242

Re: A solution, I'm curious Jason why would you have

him swear to it instead of acknowledge that he did it. What is your basis for recomending one form over the other, do you have a legal precedent for doing this or is this common practice in Washington????? Inquiring minds want to know!

Reply by Ernest__CT on 10/9/06 7:54pm
Msg #151257

I'm with Charles_CA!

We must not make the choice of jurat or ack. It is the signer's choice, otherwise it is Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) unless you happen to be an attorney.

Show your (potential) signer the two forms, tell him the difference, and let him decide. Period.

Reply by Jason on 10/9/06 8:49pm
Msg #151292

Re: A solution, I'm curious Jason why would you have

In WA, the only way to cover a previously signed doc is to have them swear they signed it.

The general idea is that if they swear they signed it, a sig given under oath has bigger repercussions in court than an ack.

A doc fruadulantly signed under oath is considered perjury here.

Perjury = all he** breaks loose during sentencing.

Far bigger fallout than signing an ack.

Reply by BarbaraL_CA on 10/9/06 7:32pm
Msg #151248

I had a situation where the gentleman had to re-sign a document that was notarized some years ago (not quite the same situation as yours), but he just signed it again with the date is was signing and a loose acknowledgement was attached per instruction of signer.

You can not determine whether to use an Ack or a Jurat - you must be instructed by someone, be it the signer, an attorney, a title company, whatever.

Reply by Marshall on 10/9/06 7:44pm
Msg #151254

Thanks for all your help!