Posted by Adrian Winstead on 12/27/07 4:09pm
Msg #227820

Acknowledgement

Has anyone seen this new section yet? I started getting docs with this printed on the bottom of the POA/Correction agreement. I would like to know do I need to fill out both sections? I live in Florida and the first part says State of California. I would appreicate any feedback anyone has on this. Thanks again.


ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of ____________________________
County of ___________________________
On _____________________ , 20____, before me, (insert name of title of
officer/notary)________________________________________, personally appeared (insert name of
borrower)__________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and
that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument. The person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which
the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Signature ___________________________________________ (seal)


Jurat

State of ____________________________
County of ___________________________
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed), before me on this __________ day of
___________________,20____ by _____________________________________, prove to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s), who appeared before me.
Signature ___________________________________________

Reply by ME/NJ on 12/27/07 4:42pm
Msg #227823

I have seen loans with CA, NY Acknowledgments added to the package to cover the closing if signed in those states. Is the bank in CA? looks like a all purpose Acknowledgments to me and should be no problem.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/27/07 4:56pm
Msg #227828

LSI added the jurat recently. MANY companies seem to think (or perhaps they don't think!) that we all live and work in CA. Doesn't matter to us - give them an ack & a jurat if that's what they want - if both meet your state's requirements. If the language on either doesn't comply to your state, adjust it.

Reply by desktopfull on 12/27/07 6:01pm
Msg #227834

I guess I'll be carrying my own general ack. to attach.

FL doesn't require a lot of the wording.

Reply by Adrian Winstead on 12/27/07 6:11pm
Msg #227836

Re: I guess I'll be carrying my own general ack. to attach.

Thanks. I will change it to State Of Florida and do both Ack. and Jurat. I guess that will work.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/27/07 6:38pm
Msg #227837

Re: I guess I'll be carrying my own general ack. to attach.

I would line through the certificates and attach my own.

Reply by Linda Spanski on 12/27/07 6:59pm
Msg #227841

Isn't more better than less?

Notaries in other states may find California verbiage a pain, but CA has the most stringent requirements I've heard of regarding IDing signers, requiring thumbprints, and including the important wording "proved to me to be" any time a signature is notarized. Seems to me more is better when we do our job.

Why not exceed expectations and fill out the forms provided and save yourself paper and toner as well?

Reply by Gerry_VT on 12/27/07 7:05pm
Msg #227843

Re: Isn't more better than less?

A California acknowledgement, modified to change the state, would be fine with me, until January 1. I'm not about to remove the posibility of identifying someone through personal knowledge, nor am I about to put up with anything about certifying under penalty of perjury, so the California acknowledgement will become unacceptable to me on January 1.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 12/27/07 7:39pm
Msg #227861

Re: Isn't more better than less?

Adrian would still have to add the form of ID presented, plus the verbiage about perjury under the laws of California is unacceptable.

It is far easier to add a Florida compliant certificate.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/27/07 7:56pm
Msg #227865

NO

I do exactly what my state legislators tell me to do - no more, no less, and certainly not what CA wants/requires. "More' is not always better.

Reply by desktopfull on 12/28/07 12:36am
Msg #227923

Re: NO

I agree, FL statutes are specific with the wording of the acknowledgements, etc. and since any mortgages for FL property are recorded in FL I'm going to attach those with the proper wording for FL.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/28/07 8:00am
Msg #227939

one other thing

...CA has the most stringent requirements I've heard of regarding IDing signers...

you've got to be kidding, right? you have that funky credible witness thingy - 2 complete strangers vouching for another stranger. Sounds 'stringent' to me.

Reply by desktopfull on 12/28/07 10:35am
Msg #227962

Re: one other thing

With the new law they won't be allowed to use the credible witness thingy.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/29/07 12:47am
Msg #228096

Re: one other thing

Where did you get that idea? I believe it is still an option. (Homework this weekend is to restudy all the new law info...)

Reply by Linda Spanski on 12/28/07 12:01pm
Msg #227983

thanks for setting me straight, Sue

You're a treasure.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/28/07 12:22pm
Msg #227988

Re: thanks for setting me straight, Sue

different ways for different states. I'm certain almost EVERY CA notary would just fall over when I used to notarize acks and the signer never appeared before me - but my attorney boss saw them sign and that's okay here. Also, we have specific acks for POAs, executors, LLC members, corporate officers, etc., and we absolutely put capacity in there. Your credible witness 'method' just amazed me the first time I ever read about it ... and it still does.

Reply by Terri Garner on 12/27/07 7:06pm
Msg #227844

This is the new 2008 California Acknowledgment and Jurat wording. We can no longer use Personal Knowledge to identify the signer of a document that is to be notarized. In addition, the notary now signs under Penalty of Perjury, certifying that the information that the notary has put in the certificate is true and correct.

This wording is required by California Notaries. I would suspect (since I haven't read any other replies yet) that you may be able to use one of your own state's certificate verbiage. But that depends on your state's laws.

Terri
Lancaster, CA

Reply by Demore on 12/27/07 7:28pm
Msg #227854

Hi! Andrian-

I used this jurat format many times.

Reply by PAW on 12/27/07 7:40pm
Msg #227862

Modify as necessary to comply

You can use any state acknowledgment or jurat in Florida as long as it complies with the requirements as set forth in the Florida Statutes, Chapter 117. Specifically, the notarial certificates for an oath (or affirmation) or an acknowledgment must contain nine basic elements:

- venue (the location of the notarization)
- type of notarial act (oath/affirmation or acknowledgment)
- that the signer personally appeared before the notary ("before me"
- actual date of notarization
- name of person whose signature is being notarized
- form of identification (not always present on 'out-of-state' certificates)
- signature of notary
- name of notary printed/typed/stamped below signature
- notary seal (with the 4 essential elements)

Some notarial certificates may vary in format, but any certificate must contain all these elements.

Reply by Doris_CO on 12/27/07 8:44pm
Msg #227881

Now, I'm confused. It appears that Adrian is stating that the POA/Correction Agreement has both the Acknowledgement and Jurat on the same page. So, is the notary suppose to complete both or decide which one is appropriate?

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/27/07 9:08pm
Msg #227888

The notary never decides which one is appropriate. As it is written, it is requesting both.

Reply by snoopdogMs on 12/28/07 10:35am
Msg #227961

Re: Acknowledgment

I called my S.O.S this a.m. and spoke with an attorney about this as I have had Borrowers Aff. as to liens and debts with the same situation. A jurat and Ack. are both at the bottom of the page following the borrowers signature. His thinking was that something has run amuck by whoever is preparing these documents that contains a jurat and ack on one page possibly caused by different state requirements. But according to him, if there is only one place for the borrower to sign then there can only be one notarization, in other words the notary cannot fill in the jurat and ack on the page utilizing only one borrowers signature. This was his advice to me.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/28/07 11:41am
Msg #227976

Re: Acknowledgment

people hate me when I call with these kinds of questions as their answers open the door for further questions from me. In this instance, I would have then asked why can't they be acknowledging their signature and swearing to the contents of the same document with one signature? Seems this type situation is one for legal minds, judges and juries as I'm guessing no state has this written anywhere and it's totally open for interpretation.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/28/07 11:48am
Msg #227979

Re: Acknowledgment

Apparently this attorney doesn't think like a RE attorney...or if they want the law clear on one signature/one certificate, then it is the problem of the bar association to fix it, not the notary. The notary can't trump a lawyer in Texas.

The reason you have the situation (two certs - jurat/ack) you have in front of you is because it was prepared to work for real estate recordings, not for attorneys advising notaries.

County recorders require acknowledgments, but...

an affidavit requires a jurat....hence the jurat...yet....

if there is some reason that this affidavit may be recorded it will require an acknowledgment, thus the ack.

Reply by BrendaTx on 12/28/07 11:49am
Msg #227980

Re: Acknowledgment

**The notary can't trump a lawyer in Texas.** In other words, the notary can't go back to the legal doc prep/attorney and say: "No that's not okay."

In fact, not even the Tx SoS will do that.

Reply by sue_pa on 12/28/07 12:25pm
Msg #227989

yup

and this is on a POA/Correction Agg so in theory it may be recorded at some point.