Posted by kg/nevada on 11/7/07 10:14pm
Msg #220159

Acknowledgement Wording Question

Just needed a little advise on this one...

The acknowledgement section of a compliance agmt. document states the following -
" On the ___day of ____, in the year 2007, before me personally came __________________
to me known as the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and who acknowledged the execution....."

It sound like if I notarize the above acknowledgement, I am saying that I know the person....??

Should I just line through it (& put "see attached acknowledgment" and attach an all purpose acknowledgment or would you use the the above wording??

Thanks to anyone who can help!

Reply by Carmi/CA on 11/7/07 10:46pm
Msg #220160

Yes, attaching a loose ack cert is better.

Reply by Gerry_VT on 11/7/07 11:08pm
Msg #220161

I'd say it means you know the person standing in front of you signed the document, and you also know he/she is the person "described in" the document. It does not say how you know; it could be because you've known the person for a long time, or it could be because you examined the person's ID card(s).

The wording isn't too different from the wording recommended by Vermont's notary manual: "On this day __ of ____ , 20__ , before me personally appeared (name of person acknowledging) to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument, and he (she) thereupon duly acknowledged to me that he (she) executed the same to be his (her) free act and deed."

Reply by Marlene/USNA on 11/8/07 8:25am
Msg #220175

"To me known" is generally accepted to mean personal knowledge of the individual.

"Proven to be" is when the individual presents identification or other satisfactory evidence.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/8/07 8:28am
Msg #220176

Interesting, Marlene. I answered kg like this: kg: If you properly identify the person then that person becomes known to you.

Reply by Marlene/USNA on 11/8/07 8:32am
Msg #220178

I would say not true, but then I'm not a lawyer. Let me run it by ours and see what he says.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/8/07 8:41am
Msg #220181

OH man...I just want to be right....ugh...I hate it when Marlene and I don't have the exact same opinion.

Reply by Marlene/USNA on 11/8/07 8:50am
Msg #220182

While we're waiting for the lawyer. . .

Nevada's SOS Website at http://sos.state.nv.us/licensing/notary/pdf/NotarialWording.pdf is a PDF mini-story about notary wording and uses this as an example:

"This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by (name of person)."

To the original question, I would answer: Cross out "known to me" and you'd remove the risk of any misunderstanding that you know the person in any way, shape or form.

Reply by LCS_CA on 11/8/07 10:19am
Msg #220196

My understanding of using personal knowledge is that you have to know that person in context with other people - having just identified him or her does not now make that person "personally known" to you. Our handbook describes it as: "Personally Knows – “Personally Knows” means having an acquaintance, derived from association with the individual in relation to other people and based upon a chain of circumstances surrounding the individual, which establishes the individual’s identity with at least reasonable certainty. (Civil Code section 1185(b))".

Of course, here in California, beginning 1.1.2008 we have to identify everyone with satisfactory evidence.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 11/8/07 10:25am
Msg #220197

Re: Same in FL

"“Personally known” means having an acquaintance, derived from association with the individual, which establishes the individual’s identity with at least a reasonable certainty." (Pg. 32 Governor's Manual) - IMO seeing ID is "proven to be" and does not render the signer "personally known" to me.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 11/8/07 10:31am
Msg #220200

There Was a Point in Time...

...in the not too distant past when I used to make a big deal about whether the language in a Notary certificate stated "known to me" or "proven to be". Our MO SOS office has assured me if a Notary identifies an individual via reliable means (i.e. photo ID) then the phrase "known to me" is the same as & interchangeable with "proven to be". In other words I was making a mountain out of a mole hill by insisting there was a difference & changing the certificate wording was a waste of time. My opinion is this is a question best answered by each state's SOS.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/8/07 11:06am
Msg #220204

Re: There Was a Point in Time...thanks Dennis...

That's the general opinion " 'round here' and 'of counsel' " but don't have the citing to make it clear.

Used to be a notary needed to KNOW the person or have witnesses who KNEW the person and KNEW the notary, but our society has grown too much and evolved.

Today, we do business and consider ourselves informed as to the identity of a person when they present credentials...hence, we KNOW them well enough to do business with them. We do not need to have

Perhaps we think, hey...if they want things a certain way they should state it outright on those certificates! But, I don't look for it to happen...so, Dennis' has a GREAT solution.

Call your SoS and see what they think!

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/8/07 11:44am
Msg #220215

Ooops, unfinished thought above...pls disregard the

incomplete info...my finger burped and then I had other duties to attend to. (:>

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 11/8/07 11:48am
Msg #220216

Your Finger...

...burped? I think I've now heard it all!

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/8/07 4:39pm
Msg #220278

Re: There Was a Point in Time...thanks Dennis...

On CA all-purpose acknowledgments, the language makes a distinction between "personally known" and "proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence". (At least until the end of the year...) Brenda, in a thread a while back, you mentioned frustration at CA notaries attaching so many loose certificates to DOTs. I think this may be why because every time I run into that language, it doesn't feel right to me, either.

I completely agree with all of you who said that this is another example of a state-specific answer!

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/8/07 4:53pm
Msg #220282

Re: There Was a Point in Time...thanks Dennis...

**Brenda, in a thread a while back, you mentioned frustration at CA notaries attaching so many loose certificates to DOTs. I think this may be why because every time I run into that language, it doesn't feel right to me, either. **

You're right, Janet...I did...but in that case as I recall it was a California compliant ack...just didn't have the red border purchased from the XYZ.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/8/07 5:08pm
Msg #220286

Oy vey!!!! ;>) n/m

Reply by Therese on 11/7/07 11:50pm
Msg #220162

Here in CA we can only notarize with the correct wording put forth in
our state handbook. It would probably be best to check your states handbook
for acceptable wording.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/8/07 4:55pm
Msg #220284

Not necessarily so...

....but that only further proves the value of your advice about checking the handbook (if one exists) for our own states!

If you look up 1189 (c), you'll find it says "On documents TO BE FILED [emphasis my own] in another state or jurisdiction of the United States, a California notary public may complete any acknowledgment form AS MAY BE REQUIRED [emphasis my own] in that other state or jurisdiction on a document, provided the form does not require the notary to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law."

The way I interpret this is that if we are doing a signing for an out of state property, we can use the provided acknowledgment verbiage, if we know that it is what is required in that state and it doesn't require a capacity be included. (jmho) Also, personally, I would replace verbiage that I didn't feel comfortable with (based on CA law), like stating that someone I identified using ID was "known to me..." Again, this is just my opinion. I'm not an attorney and this should NOT be taken as legal advice.

Reply by BrendaTx on 11/8/07 6:19am
Msg #220163

kg: If you properly identify the person then that person becomes known to you.

Nothing sinister here.

What does your state handbook and acknowledgment wording say? Is it substantially different?

Official Texas wording is shown below and isn't that much different...you can find the forms here: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/forms/edinfo-sample-forms.pdf.

If you plan to continue notarizing the best thing you can do for yourself is to make a copy of your book or bookmark your forms so that you know without a doubt at all times what is acceptable and what isn't. If your state doesn't have a book, call your commissioning office and get acceptable wording and their rules for accepting other, but similar wording.


TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I. Form for Ordinary Certificate of Acknowledgment


State of Texas
County of _______________

Before me, (insert the name and character of the officer), on this day personally appeared ____________________, known to me (or proved to me on the oath of ______________ or through (description of identity card or other document)) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed.

Given under my hand and seal of office this __________ day of __________, (year).


______________________


Notary Public's Signature

(Personalized Seal)





II. Short Forms

A. For a natural person acting in his/her own right:


State of Texas
County of _______________

This instrument was acknowledged before me on (date) by (name or names of person or persons acknowledging).



______________________
Notary Public's Signature

(Personalized Seal)

Reply by Brenda Stone on 11/8/07 6:25am
Msg #220165

Re: Acknowledgement Wording Question - ah ha!

Nevada only has a short form as best as I can tell from their handbook. It's pretty much like the Texas shortform.

If I were a NV notary I'd fax the long form you have before you (and which you will be seeing from both Texas and California for sure) and ask the commissioning office if there's a problem with those for NV notaries.

Reply by Kim Patterson on 11/8/07 9:07am
Msg #220186

Re: Acknowledgement Wording Question - ah ha!

Thank you for all of your help!

Reply by sue_pa on 11/8/07 12:01pm
Msg #220221

certainly state specific and Marlene jumped in before I did but not in PA - that's not the 'definition' of 'personally known' - here we've been taught you need a history with the person via interaction with other individuals through work, family, school, etc.