Posted by Stoli on 9/29/07 11:14am
Msg #213838

Question for Califoria notaries -

Yesterday I saw a post on the board:
"According to my Notary renewal class instructor California no longer permits the Optional Information Section on either an Acknowledgement or a Jurat. I think it's a stupid interpretation of the substitution of the word "exactly" for "substantially" in the 2007 Notary Law revisions. I personally think it removes a valuable "anti-fraud" tool from the Ack and Jurat, but technically it could be considered an invalid Ack because it has the Optional Info section printed on it. Stupid legislature. Unintended Consequences. DUH. "

Can anyone verify this information? I don't see anything in our new handbook.

Reply by JAM/CA on 9/29/07 11:31am
Msg #213840

Nope, haven't heard anything about it and doubt that it is true. I continue to use Optional Info and docs record.

If it is an SOS new law, I haven't seen it on their website. I just follow the laws.

Reply by LCS_CA on 9/29/07 11:34am
Msg #213841

I print my own Acknowledgments and Jurats and I have optional information (date of document, name of document, other party executing the document) at the bottom of both of these forms. I have not had any rejected by any county recorder's office to date. I don't think you will find anything in the handbook. Some recorder's offices were interpreting this new requirement very narrowly, (but have since lightened up), and I suppose there could be a problem, but I have not heard of one yet. Has anyone here had an Acknowledgment rejected at the time of recording?

Reply by DogmongerCA on 9/29/07 11:40am
Msg #213842

To my way of thinking if the Ack or Jurat wording is exact

Any request for additional information outside the body of that certificate does not fall under the current law. Until the AG or SOS that is how I will precede. Don't believe everything that these carpetbagger agencies sell. I have several discussions with their quote instructors, that they cannot quantify items that they teach. Their response, was that we are certified by the government, so I will continue to teach what the company supplies, regardless if it is in direct conflict with government or civil code.

Reply by Barb/MO on 9/29/07 11:48am
Msg #213846

Please see my question re same in Msg #213827 n/m

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 9/29/07 11:50am
Msg #213847

I use them all the time and have not had any issues or heard of any issues ...

Reply by Brenda/CA on 9/29/07 12:25pm
Msg #213850

I too use the acknowledgements with the optional information box. I have not yet had one rejected, nor have I read anything about them not being compliant within California.