Posted by davidK/CA on 9/29/07 7:00pm
Msg #213890

Clarification on CA Acknowledgements and Jurats

I have personally heard a CA notary instructor say that the optional information section is no longer permitted on California Acks and Jurats. I have also heard from two new CA Notaries that took a class from another company the exact same thing.

I can't find my copy of the 2005 Notary Handbook, but to the best of my knowledge the language back then said the ACK was to be in "substantially this form" (then stating the wording to be used) and then in 2006 they changed the language of the Jurat completely to it's current mandated language.

Apparently all three instructors saying you can't have the optional section obviously is a strict interpretation of the handbook language "Any certificate of acknowledgement taken within this state SHALL BE IN THE FOLLOWING FORM:" (emphasis added)

If it's true, I think it's a dumb move on the part of the SOS since the optional information section helps prevent the attachment of a loose ACK or Jurat to a subtituted document.

I would like a CA notary instructor on this Board to comment, and if necessary straighten out what can be very confusing.

Reply by GWest on 9/30/07 11:14am
Msg #213932

I am not an instructor, but I have not heard that about the Option information. The only thing I have heard is that they are talking about taking out "personally known to me" in the acknowledgement, meaning that the person must be "proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence".
I personally would not be happy if we had to take out the optional information portion of the loose acknowledgement as anyone could take an acknowledgement and attach to to another document.

Reply by GWest on 9/30/07 11:39am
Msg #213934

What I am thinking is that the optional information they are talking about is the "personally known" verses "proved to me on the bases of satisfactory evidence".

Reply by GWest on 9/30/07 11:52am
Msg #213935

Before you all jump on me, I worded that wrong. I mean to say that you have the option in an acknowledgement/jurat to choose "Personally known to me" or "proved to me the basis of satisfactory evidence". They are talking about taking that option away and proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence will be the only way to identify the signor. Maybe that is what the instructors are referring to?

Reply by davidK/CA on 9/30/07 12:55pm
Msg #213940

What I have been saying is that three CA notary class instructors have said within the last two months that nothing beyond the text of the Ack or Jurat can be on a loose attachment. To them, nothing means nothing, especially the optional information.

I realize this is a very strict interpretation of "shall be in the following form" and I don't agree with it, and don't want it to be interpreted that way, but for some reason (as I personally heard and have been told by two of my employees who just took classes from other instructors) it was a clearly stated position by the instructors. Have they been instructed by the SOS or AG to say this?

Who is right and who is wrong, I just know that's what was said in class three times.

Reply by Stoli on 9/30/07 4:45pm
Msg #213950

Just a thought...

I don't believe the SoS is referring to the "additional information" section of the jurat form at all, but is referring to the change in the body of the jurat. The new jurat form includes the date the document was witnessed and the name of the person taking the oath. I believe that is what is mean by "shall be" in this format.

Reply by davidK/CA on 9/30/07 6:47pm
Msg #213954

Still trying to get the REAL answer here

The three instructors were very clear that the additional information section on both the Ack and Jurat were now "verboten". They made a particular point of saying this very clearly and I wonder why they would do so with such emphasis if it wasn't correct. No, it wasn't a question on the exam so why they pushed it so hard I can't imagine unless there has been some opinion by the SOS or the AG that only instructors know about (or is it just certain instructors?).

I know we have instructors on this board. Please comment so we can clear this once and for all.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 9/30/07 7:02pm
Msg #213956

Re: Still trying to get the REAL answer here

Have you tried calling your SOS to get the answer?

Reply by MikeC/NY on 9/30/07 8:28pm
Msg #213959

Here's a thought....

Maybe the instructors are wrong?

Does CA certify people who teach notary courses? Is there any way to show that they are actually familiar with current notary law? Where are these "instructors" getting their information?

Take everything told to you by an "instructor" with a grain of salt - refer to your manual, and check with your SoS when things don't make sense.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 9/30/07 10:20pm
Msg #213966

How about some logic..

First off, you can download a current manual from the SOS website. You don't have to search for it.

Next, think about how many times that the acknowlegements and jurats are on the same page as the document and signatures to be notarized. The law only refers to the notary wording, not the rest of the document. The notary wording must be in a specific format. That is it If what those instructors said were true, then the law would require all acknowledgements to be separate attachments and would state that no other wording could to be on the document.

If you are in doubt, write or call the SOS. Do not, repeat, do not take the word of any other notary, instructor or not ...

Reply by Terri_CA on 10/1/07 5:15pm
Msg #214130

David - From and instructor, I can tell you that those instructors are WRONG. I am in Los Angeles County, and as far as I know, the optional information that is on loose certificates (ack or jurat) below the actual notary wording is still ok. In fact, a prudent and diligent notary would ALWAYS make sure to indicate on a loose certificate what document the certificate is attached to, etc.

As far as the Personal Knowledge stuff, that is still on the CA Senate floor, it has passed the State Assembly, and a Senate Committee, but has not passed the full Senate, nor has it been signed off by the Governor.

Here's the link directly to the 2006 California notary Handbook: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/notary_hdbk.pdf

Terri
Lancaster, CA
CA Notary Exam Instructor

Reply by Barb/MO on 10/1/07 8:45pm
Msg #214170

Thanks for clarifying, Terri. n/m