Posted by Patricia Casey on 3/19/07 12:08pm
Msg #180591

CO Jurat/Acknowledgment Question

I was asked to notarize an Owner (Refinance) Final Affidavit and Agreement the document states "The Owner of the property, being first duly sworn on oath, hereby makes the following representations..."
The notary language is for an acknowledgement (the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me), as I read the CO Notaries Public Act if I am administering an oath it has to be a Jurat (subscribed and affirmed, or sworn to before me).

Reply by Ernest__CT on 3/19/07 12:23pm
Msg #180597

Either apply a Jurat stamp or attach a loose certificate. n/m

Reply by Patricia Casey on 3/19/07 12:28pm
Msg #180598

Re: Either apply a Jurat stamp or attach a loose certificate.

I did that but the Title company is sending back telling me I have to sign their acknowledgement which as far as I know is not the correct notary language.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 3/19/07 12:32pm
Msg #180600

Refer to the appropriate place in your Handbook, ...

... and point the company to it online.

YOU are the Notary Public. YOU must follow the law IN YOUR STATE.

Reply by Larry/Ca on 3/19/07 12:37pm
Msg #180603

They make the decison which act to perform.....

You can only do what they ask. If they simply want you to acknowledge the signature on this document, that is what you must do. You may be right that this may need a jurat but it is their call.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 3/19/07 12:41pm
Msg #180605

Nope. State law MUST be followed.

The Post mentioned that the wording did not match was is currently required in the state in which the Notary is commissioned. Each of us must follow the law in our state,

Reply by Gerry_VT on 3/19/07 12:43pm
Msg #180607

Re: Nope. State law MUST be followed.

Of course, if they want both an acknowledgement and an oath, there is nothing to stop you from performing both.

Reply by SharonMN on 3/19/07 12:46pm
Msg #180608

Re: They make the decison which act to perform.....

Agree with Larry. If the document drafter wants an ack, that's what they get, whether the document itself implies a need for jurat or not. Especially if I question it and am directly told to do an ack.

If you are really stressed about it, is there any rule in CO that prohbits putting someone under oath and then executing an ack? They'd still be swearing; you just wouldn't be certifying in your notary certificate that they did. I know some people give an oath once at the beginning of a signing and consider it to cover everything in the pile that needs an oath.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 3/19/07 12:42pm
Msg #180606

Since the Document was Created...

...with acknowledgement wording in the Notary certificate, as long as it meets your state's requirements you should have simply gone with that. Anything else you do (i.e. attach a jurat certificate) smacks of UPL. It matters not what the document itself says as that's not your concern. It's what's contained in the Notary certificate that should be your guide in this situation. For all you know the creator of the document is asking the signer to place themselves under oath, not for you as a Notary to do it. Sometimes we all have a tendency to read too much into our Notary job & overreach a little bit.

Reply by BrendaTx on 3/19/07 1:13pm
Msg #180617

Re: Since the Document was Created...

Is there any state (besides perhaps Louisanna) where a notary is supposed to be concerned with any language outside of their own notary certificate where the choice of certificate is concerned?

Changing out the certificate (in Tx, anyhow) is a very bad idea.

Reply by Doris_CO on 3/19/07 2:10pm
Msg #180634

Section 12-55-206 of the Colorado P.N. law, as I understand it, states that the words "Acknowledged before me" is all that is needed to determine that it's an acknowledgment. Section 12-55-208 gives the wording for "short" forms of Acknowledgment", which is what is commonly seen on acknowledgments...(i.e)...."the foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me............"

As its been said on this forum, if in doubt, contact the person/company that contacted you for the signing.

Reply by Carolyn Bodley on 3/19/07 2:24pm
Msg #180645

Thanks Doris. I was going to cite 12-55-206 but chose to go with the direction of why *we* shouldn't make the decision of using an acknowledgment or a jurat.

Reply by Carolyn Bodley on 3/19/07 2:18pm
Msg #180642

Read page 12 of the Handbook:

"Why shouldn't the notary make this determination?
1. This is not a responsibility assigned to the notary by law. ...
2. This is not a responsibility the notary wants. ...
3. This is a decision that may have legal implications--notaries who are not lawyers should not feel free to adopt "lawyer-like" responsibilities.

I strongly suggest you call the SOS for the correct answer. You can also e-mail them and that way you will have the answer will be in writing; however, they normally don't get back to you until the next day.

Reply by BrendaTx on 3/19/07 2:34pm
Msg #180647

Exactly, Carolyn. CO words it very well. n/m

Reply by Patricia Casey on 3/19/07 4:09pm
Msg #180678

I did call the secretary of state and they stated it should be a Jurat if it is a sworn oath as the document indicates but if the title company wants an acknowledgement that's what I'm going to give them.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 3/19/07 4:24pm
Msg #180683

You Have a Private Message, Patricia!

Reply by Carolyn Bodley on 3/20/07 7:42am
Msg #180786

Even though the SOS told you that a jurat was correct, IMO, when you made the decision without checking with the TC to replace a jurat with the TC's acknowledgment, you overstepped your bounds and stepped right into UPL -- the reason being is that Colorado has made it very clear that it is not the notary's responsibility to choose. Another consideration is the stand your E&O insurance provider would take if your action held up funding BOs loan, causing a claim to be made against you -- would such an action fall under negligent act or error and omission ...

Reply by Carolyn Bodley on 3/20/07 7:48am
Msg #180787

Re: clarification

you replaced the TC's acknowledgment with your own loose jurat without confirming with the TC.