Posted by Calnotary on 12/27/07 7:17pm
Msg #227847

2008 Jurats and Ack.

I have started using 2008 ack on DOT because by the time it records will be already 2008.

Reply by Salvador Avalos on 12/27/07 7:24pm
Msg #227852

I have not notarize any documents using "personally known to me", I always cross it out on the ack. Is it sufficient to continue cossing it out? Or do we have to attach a loose ack. to everything?

Reply by Terri Garner on 12/27/07 7:29pm
Msg #227857

As of 1/1/2008, you must start using the new verbiage. In addition to crossing out "personally known" additional verbiage at the end of the certificate must be there. Further, you cannot just write the additional verbiage either, must be printed.

So the short answer, is no, you cannot continue to use older certificates and just cross out "personally known."

There are free 2008 certificates available to download from other sites. Do a google search and I'm sure you'll find something. In addition, I'm sure that the CA SOS site will have something up either on 1/1/08 or 1/2/08 that you can download. OR you can get the SOS site for the new laws, see the new wording and create your own using Word, which will be acceptable so long as it's the correct wording.

Terri
Lancaster, CA

Reply by Therese on 12/27/07 7:31pm
Msg #227858

Here is a great link to the SOS's update for 2008

http://www.sos. ca.gov/business/ notary/forms/ notary_newslette r_2008.pdf

Reply by Therese on 12/27/07 7:33pm
Msg #227860

Oops try this one

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary_newsletter_2008.pdf

Reply by Linda Spanski on 12/27/07 8:20pm
Msg #227871

Thank you, Therese n/m

Reply by Therese on 12/27/07 8:44pm
Msg #227882

Re: Thank you, Therese

Your welcome. n/m

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/27/07 8:17pm
Msg #227869

Who cares when it records? That has nothing to do with your notary certificate. You're notarizing in 2007, you need to use the form that meets today's law, not the law a week from now.

Reply by Calnotary on 12/27/07 9:07pm
Msg #227887

Sorry Cali, but I called my local county recorders office and they told me that they are accepting 2008 ack even before they are effective, so I will do that in tonight's signing.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/27/07 9:25pm
Msg #227891

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

Bottom line, the new ones are already acceptable, but not required until the SIGNING DATE is in 2008, not the recording date. I imagine that's what Cali meant. I'm already using new forms, too. BTW, I created them myself, just using text shown from the SOS site. Pretty simple to do, and cheaper than buying them. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seemingly been bombarded with emails from various companies with information and/or sample certs for new CA law effective as of January 1, '08.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/27/07 9:37pm
Msg #227893

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

Not to split hairs, but where does it say the new forms are already acceptable to be using? I just checked the SOS website, looked at their summary of the new laws, and nowhere do I see anything stating that it's ok to be using the new acknowledgment wording prior to January 1.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary_newsletter_2008.pdf

And I know this is kind of a stupid argument, if it's going to be mandatory next week then it shouldn't be a big deal if they're used this week. But I haven't seen anything that says we're actually allowed to be doing that.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/27/07 9:41pm
Msg #227894

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

How much of this constant word changing do you think that the NNA is responsible for? Do they lobby hard to get this crap done? The changes don't make a hill of beans from a Texas perspective...except that you guys are stuck with changing a bunch of stuff and they hope that you'll purchase the newest, latest, and greatest from them.

Isn't it odd that no other state is constantly making these changes?

It would be interesting to know how much money they make from each of these ridiculous changes.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/27/07 9:44pm
Msg #227896

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

Isn't it ridiculous? I never even thought of the NNA being involved, but I guess that's a possiblity. I always just figured that it was the head of the notary division at the SOS office trying to justify his job's existence.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/27/07 10:03pm
Msg #227902

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

I definitely think they are involved and lobby like crazy. If I were a notary in California I'd look into it and start writing my state reps to tell them to stop listening to those greedy rascals.

Greedy=my opinion, and I'm still entitled to it, NNA.

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 12/28/07 12:33am
Msg #227922

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

Well here is the day it all changes for us in Calif.

All loans signed in CA from today and forward (12/27/2007) will have to have the new Acknowledgement verbiage to have a Deed Of Trust record. Any loan signed today will record in Jan 2008.

My opinion is to carry approx 10 CA (2008) loose ACK Certificates at all times.

I had to use 6 today.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/28/07 7:33am
Msg #227936

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

Joan, does this mean that if a dot was done in November according to 2007 law and just now made it to record in January that it will be kicked back? That seems ridiculous.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/28/07 8:23am
Msg #227943

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

...All loans signed in CA from today and forward (12/27/2007) will have to have the new Acknowledgement verbiage to have a Deed Of Trust record....


I see after all these years you still are spouting your 'wisdom' to the unknowing. I certainly am not in CA and don't in any way, shape or form think I know CA law but you are wrong. Something could have been signed back in 1968 and be recorded January 2, 2008 and it will not be rejected because it doesn't meet the new requirements.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/28/07 11:39am
Msg #227974

If Sue's wrong I'd hate to have the liability that the

county recorder will face if they botch a recording based on the FUTURE law taking over the law in effect on the date of signing/acknowledging. I'm sorry, but that's just ignorant that they might do that. Seriously.

While they might do it (wrong) as has been stated, I believe they'd have their t**t in a wringer liability-wise if they rejected a 2007 (or earlier) ack because it didn't meet 2008 requirements.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/28/07 11:45am
Msg #227977

Re: If Sue's wrong I'd hate to have the liability that the

Agree. Some might erroneously reject something initially but it won't take long for them to 'amend' their ways. As long as it was executed and notarized properly, AT THE DATE AND LOCATION OF SIGNING, it must be accepted. This is VERY basic. When I worked, about once or twice a year we recorded Deeds that has been executed decades earlier - 'country' people just never got around to coming to town to record it.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/27/07 10:07pm
Msg #227903

Re: 2008 Jurats and Ack. -- CA ONLY

My guess is that it's political and is more likely a combination of several factors. First, a backlash to the NNA and others flooding the market with what we could call less than professional notaries. Secondly, it makes some law makers look like they are cracking down on mortgage fraud. Bottom line, though, is that whether or not it's window dressing, someone somewhere has felt that the overall standard of performance by notaries public in this state left something to be desired. Last year, it was the addition of mandatory classes.

Whether or not these sentiments were pushed by the NNA is a good question. It wouldn't surprise me, because they will certainly find a way to profit from it -- or will try mightily. In fact, I did some notary work recently for a woman who is a notary herself (and a good one, it sounded like to me). She had already signed up for an NNA class, based on their mailings, and was not pleased to learn that all the new info she needed was available on the SOS website.

There's a lot of that going around, no doubt. It does make me wonder, though, what might be next, if the caliber of notaries in this state is being perceived as a problem.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/27/07 9:31pm
Msg #227892

C'mon, you know better than this

Why are you asking the county recorder's office about notary law? Notary law has nothing to do with deeds or real estate. The new wording law is effective January 1, which means that until then the old laws are in effect. Which means you're using the incorrect wording on your acknowledgments.

Granted, I seriously doubt that anyone's going to make an issue of it, but I'm just surprised that someone who has been on this board as long as you have is doing something that seems like such a newbie type of thing to me. The county doesn't get to decide notary law.

Reply by Gary_CA on 12/27/07 11:32pm
Msg #227915

Don't kid yourself... the country recorder is the key

Cal got that part right, the only person who9 ever reads a damned ack is the county recorder, and I wouldn't be surprised if some half-wit in LA county doesn't go into work on Weds and start rejecting deeds left and right. (LA county is most famous for inspecting seal impressions and rejecting them for a little smear or whatever).

I agree with you it's the SOS office that determines the law, but it's the county recorder where the rubber meets the road. And if that idiot decides that starting 1/2 nothing records without a new ack form regardless of when it was signed it'll be easier to fedex ack forms than argue with them.

Ok, while we're all ranting, here's mine... A notary gets a background check, takes a class about his/her duties (wherein it is explained a zillion times what notary fraud is) takes an oath... and buys a bond.

Why, why on God's green earth, why in the name of every deed that has ever been stamped, do we need to go through all the BS to add "under penalty of perjury" to the damned ack form. Nothing has changed, a notary falsifying that cert has always done it under penalty of a helluvalotmore than perjury.

Nincompoops.

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 12/28/07 12:37am
Msg #227924

Re: C'mon, you know better than this

My guess is you didn't have any signings today?

If you did they won't record in 2008.

Reply by CaliNotary on 12/28/07 9:24pm
Msg #228070

Re: C'mon, you know better than this

"If you did they won't record in 2008."

Betcha $5 they will.

Besides, that's not my problem. My job as a notary is to follow SOS law, not toss it aside because it might confuse the county's employees.

But please tell me where you read that it's allowable to use next year's wording prior to the effective date of Jan 1? And if you can't do that, please tell me how you can justify using what's basically illegal wording on a 2007 acknowledgment? Without bringing the county into it, since that's irrelevant when it comes to the law about how an ack MUST be worded.

Reply by desktopfull on 12/28/07 12:56am
Msg #227927

Since the law states "Effective January 1, 2008," it would seem that you need to continue using the your current acknow., etc. until the effective date. Recording date isn't relevant, the notarization date is what's relevant because that's when the document was signed.

Reply by Therese on 12/28/07 1:17am
Msg #227928

When Acks changed in 06' did anyone have a problem recording

I never had anything rejected.

Reply by Therese on 12/28/07 1:21am
Msg #227929

How about wrong worded Jurats still being notarized.

I see this all the time. Where the wording on Acks and Jurats are not up to Calif. code and
still being notarized. How many of you change this out recorded or not. I change mine all the time. Especially if docs are to be recorded in Cali.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/28/07 7:31am
Msg #227935

How can the notary know when something will record? I agree with you dtf, and Cali...but then again, you know I'm down in the nether regions where notaries haven't become fodder for the notary police...not yet anyhow.

Reply by desktopfull on 12/28/07 10:32am
Msg #227958

The NNA just hasn't hit your state yet! If they think they can make a buck from getting the state to pass a regulation you can bet they'll be pounding on the door of your legislature lobbying to get it passed.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/28/07 12:42pm
Msg #227994

**The NNA just hasn't hit your state yet! If they think they can make a buck from getting the state to pass a regulation you can bet they'll be pounding on the door of your legislature lobbying to get it passed.**

Oh, they've hit it...but failed to impress.

Reply by desktopfull on 12/28/07 12:50pm
Msg #227997

I wish our state leader's were that smart. LOL :^ )

Reply by GWest on 12/28/07 11:59am
Msg #227982

Received the following email from DocPros:
Dear DocPros Notary,
The majority of the County Recorder's Offices have advised that they will not accept the new (in effect 01/01/2008) notary acknowledgment attached to documents to be recorded prior to 2008 UNLESS the following verbiage is stricken from the acknowledgment (strikeout, black out):
"I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.”
Please continue to use the old verbiage until after the first of the year.
Thank you,