Posted by Tess on 5/31/07 9:01pm
Msg #193063

PA notaries public: Update to Notarial wording

Just wanted to update you as to what I confirmed with the SOS. I had a three-way conversation with the notary dept supervisor and their attorney and what was confirmed is below.

1. All notarizations have to have notarial wording.
2. You cannot notarize a document unless the person is in front of you. This goes even if they signed the document previously in front of you.

I did not ask about backdating because that cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is a given!

The state has disciplined notaries for the above offenses!!!!

So when a person tells you it's ok to do otherwise, you must ask yourself: Is losing my commission, paying a fine and or possible going to jail, and the embarrassment of having the discipline on your commission record, worth it?

They are not the ones who will be held responsible for what you do!

PS: They never did overnight the E&O to me(I think we all know why). I decided to email them with the info I confirmed and again offered to go to the borrowers to have the E&O notarized, but have not received an answer. As I wrote them, that if I do not here back from them, I will assume everything if fine the way it is and I expect payment in full.

Tess

Reply by sue_pa on 6/1/07 7:03am
Msg #193103

your #2 is very important for PA people to realize. From reading these boards, it appears other states permit the notary to send in a loose ack after the fact if something is wrong on the original. We cannot do that here even though we are asked as often as those in other states. If something is wrong with a notarized document - even if it's the notary's fault - sending back an ack after the fact just doesn't fly here. I read here so often that people want the company to fax the doc with the error and in PA that doesn't do a bit of good. Unfortunately here, if you go back and get it resigned (jurat) or go back and have them reacknowledge their signature (ack) it must be dated for that date. That is why it is SO important to do it correct the first time and agreeing to fix your errors for free really isn't a solution because no lender or title company is going to 'allow' you to have one document in the entire package dated differently than all the others.

Tess' situation shows the 'trouble' we can get into - even by following their instructions. She didn't get paid to 'discuss' this with her client. She didn't get paid to contac the SOS office for something she knew she was correct.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 6/1/07 7:18am
Msg #193106

Sue
Florida does not permit us to send in a loose ack after the fact either. The notarization must be repeated, the signer must appear in front of the notary again, and the certificate must reflect the date the signer is appearing.

Reply by sue_pa on 6/1/07 7:21am
Msg #193109

When I read the posts about sending acks back after seeing the 'error' on faxed copies, I always wonder whether those states really permit that or whether the notaries just don't know any better. We read that A LOT on these boards.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 6/1/07 8:15am
Msg #193116

I would suspect that it is notaries that do not know any better.

Reply by Barb/MO on 6/1/07 12:49pm
Msg #193170

My observation as an interested bystander

We've had three recent discussions related to a request by a TC or SS for an SA to provide an acknowledgment after the fact in recent days--this one, the original one related to this at Msg #192535 (related to an E & O doc), and a similar one beginning at Msg #192975. Additionally, this type of discussion appears from time to time with regularity. I haven't been a part of any of these discussions to date, but Sue's comment that we read a lot about sending back acknowledgments after seeing errors, even though it may not be permitted, prompts me to interject here. (By the way, Sue, although I don't know you, from what I read of your postings, you are a long-time, well-respected, experienced and knowledgeable SA, and we who are newer at this are fortunate to have your input.)

Someone who has actually been involved in one of these discussions can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I believe I'm seeing is the following scenario repeatedly: An inexperienced SA solicits for advice about what he/she should do about a TC's or SS's request for a completed loose acknowledgment, allegedly due to a shortcoming in the SA's execution of his/her assignment, most often related to the DOT. A more experienced SA then suggests that perhaps the SA hasn't made a mistake, but that there is an ulterior motive for the party requesting the loose acknowledgment.

In order to settle the issue of whether there was a mistake as alleged, the seasoned SA is suggesting that the inexperienced SA ask the requesting party for a copy of the document in which the mistake was allegedly made--not as part of a process to correct, but rather to substantiate that there was, in fact, an error made. While I haven't kept score, it seems to me what usually happens is the matter is dropped because the SA didn't actually make a mistake in the original acknowledgment that needs correcting. The request for the completed loose acknowledgment, which appears to have been intended for some other, undisclosed purpose, then goes away.

For the most part, I don't think I'm seeing SAs reporting that they're going ahead to send in the requested completed loose acknowledgments after being provided with a copy of the original document. I would imagine that would be illegal in most states, not just PA. My reading of the MO statutes and handbook leads me to believe anytime a notary is completing an acknowledgment, he/she must have the signer appear before him/her. And besides, we couldn't provide an acknowledgment for a photocopy of a signature. Seems like the essential components are the document itself, a signer's original signature (either signed in the notary's presence or acknowledged at the time of appearance) + an original notary's current-dated acknowledgment. The conclusion (that is, the forum members' consensus), which seems to be posted repeatedly, is a loose acknowledgment can't be provided by a notary to any other party--whether it's associated with a specific previously-executed document or is just wanted "just in case it's needed."

IMHO there are a two or three puzzling posts in the string beginning with Msg #192975 that seemingly contradict what I've stated above, if I'm understanding the writers' postings correctly. My intent is to clarify what I perceive as the forum members' consensus, but if I've messed that up, I'd appreciate being corrected.

Thanks!

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/1/07 2:06pm
Msg #193181

Re: My observation as an interested bystander

In case you are talking about mine:

1) Don't send in a loose acknowledgment for anything. Have the company send you back the document and go to the signer and have it acknowledged. Like you said, the problem usually dissolves by then.

2) Certainly don't put a reduced size image of a signature page (copy) onto a page and then add notary wording to the bottom of the page and notarize...it is then notarizing a COPY.

Reply by BrendaTx on 6/1/07 2:10pm
Msg #193182

Re: My observation as an interested bystander-Barb

I should have said, to clarify mine...I agree with you that the answers need to be clarified on that thread.

Reply by Barb/MO on 6/1/07 3:25pm
Msg #193194

Brenda, I believe we are in agreement on all points

Yours is not a post I had concerns about. It was some of the other posts on that string, coupled with Sue's comment

Reply by HARRY_PA on 6/1/07 10:34am
Msg #193141

Tess:
The information that you have provided is helpful but nothing new. It has been this way as I enter my nineteenth year as a PA Notary Public. What also is old news is that someone will always try to convince you otherwise. Happy weekend.
Harry

Reply by Tess on 6/1/07 10:13pm
Msg #193288

Thanks Harry, when I made my first post about this I was ranting. I was asked in that post to update after I talked with the SOS and that was what I was doing. Since there are always new notaries coming to this site, I see no harm in repeating this info from time to time as well.


Tess