Posted by MelissaCT on 9/13/07 9:40pm
Msg #210887

Wierd verbiage -- help?

MD title co, has the following in the notary block that has me stumped. This is on CT property, FWIW,

I Hereby Certify, that on this [date] before me, the subscriber, did personally appear [borrower name] by [blank], known to me or satisfactorily proven to be the persons whose names are set forth in the attached document and did further acknowledge that they exectued the foregoing document for the purposes therin contained.

This almost sounds like it's an AIF-type notarization, doesn't it? I know what I'm inclined to do with the [borrower name] by [blank] part, which is strike through the unnecessary wording, but I'm wondering if I'm overlooking soemthing that would actually make sense to put there.

Anyone ever see this format before? TIA

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 9/14/07 7:23am
Msg #210919

Haven't seen this before. But I would be inclined to attach a state approved acknowledgment.

They are appearing before me, the subscriber (well, I will be signing my name to the certificate so I am the subscriber in this case). And they (borrower/s) are acknowledging they executed the document.

Reply by MelissaCT on 9/14/07 9:20am
Msg #210930

Thanks, Sylvia!! CT has wording, but also accepts "substantially similar". I have a stamp that has the standard acknowledgement, so I'll put that on the page, since there's room.

I wasn't sure if this was a MD-specific format.

Reply by firegirl on 9/14/07 11:12am
Msg #210961

I agree the wording is a bit odd. I don't believe it is MD specific. Also, I don't think I would add another acknowledgement on the same page, if you want to include it I would keep it as a separate attachment. Don't want to give them a reason to send it back.

Reply by TRG_wy on 9/14/07 10:01am
Msg #210941

I have seen this particular verbiage a few times here as well. I think it is lender specific but cannot recall.

I line through and initial the unnecessary field(s) that have no known input by me.
"..by [blank], known to me or satisfactorily proven... " - in this case the "by [blank]" section. My opinion is that this is MY SPACE and as long as it meets state requirements I complete it as appropiate.

As an aside, my state requires that "My Commission Expires:" be part of this area as well. Since the state does not require expiration date within the seal itself it does require it outside the seal. I have only ever had one call asking why I wrote that everywhere and had to send them the specific state statute stating its requirement. - I sure get tired of writing it too. I finally had a stamp made up to put it outside my seal, which BTW has always had it included anyway (but next time around I will not include it so I will not have to by a new seal every four years; but of course I have been saying that for years now and keep having it added anyway - LOL).

- Russ

Reply by MichiganAl on 9/14/07 11:21am
Msg #210968

How about this?

I Hereby Certify, that on this 14th day of September before me, the subscriber, did personally appear John Doe by golly.

Works for me and that'll teach them to keep inserting blanks in the most idiotic places.

Reply by BobbiCT on 9/14/07 11:34am
Msg #210981

Re: Wierd verbiage

I've seen it before. It's a variation of the long-form acknowledgment. The "[borrower name] by [blank]" would be if the document is being signed through the use of a Power of Attorney. Follow Sylvia in FL's advice or, as you stated, use your own stamp.

Reply by MelissaCT on 9/14/07 11:53am
Msg #210990

Re: Thank you all, it IS what I suspected after all... n/m