Posted by Lorraine Maguire on 8/25/08 12:58am
Msg #261640

Urgent Question About Jurat Language - CA 2006

I need a reply from someone regarding the legality of the following language on a document (Jurat)

"Before me, (name of notary), on this day of month, 2006, personally appeared (name of person making sworn statement), known to me to be a credible person and of lawful age, who being by me first duly sworn, on (date) his oath, deposes and says:"

This exact language is contained on six documents exectuted by six different people and notarized by six different notaries in four different counties.

Reply by John_NorCal on 8/25/08 1:12am
Msg #261641

The first thing is that you are not allowed to certify as to capacity **known to me to be a credible person and of lawful age,** whether it's a jurat or an acknowledgement.

The second and equally important is that you must use the exact wording as specified by the Secretary of State.

State of California
County of _______________

Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____ day of _____________________, 20_____, by __________________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.


(seal)
Signature______________________

Reply by Cheryl Anderson on 8/25/08 1:16am
Msg #261642

check your PM

...and John is correct. This wording is the appropriate wording as of 2008. I sent you a link to compare the 2006 wording.

Reply by Lorraine Maguire on 8/25/08 1:19am
Msg #261644

Re: check your PM

Actually, these docs were notarized in 2006. 2008 language does not apply. I don't have the 2006 handbook anymore. I didn't think I would need it.

Reply by Lorraine Maguire on 8/25/08 1:17am
Msg #261643

Thank you - I am not notarizing these documents. They were notarized by someone else (several notaries, actually). These statements were submitted by my ex in a family court matter and I was verifying my belief that we notaries cannot attest to the character of the person signing. Hard to believe that five notaries in four different counties all signed and notarized documents that contained the exact same language.

Thanks for your speedy reply.

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/25/08 12:55pm
Msg #261686

Interesting comments. In Texas, every court file bound affidavit would start out with similar language...then at the end a signature, and a notary jurat.

Reply by Cheryl Anderson on 8/25/08 1:29am
Msg #261645

I understood perfectly what you were saying...you needed a reply regarding the legality of the following language, (notarial verbiage for a 2006 jurat). I gave you a link so that you can compare wording...

Was this all on ONE document? Sounds odd. Whatever it is...good luck with it...
Have a good rest of night.

Reply by Terri_CA on 8/25/08 3:21pm
Msg #261707

That wording, in a nutshell, was not acceptable in 2006. Since January 1, 2005, CA has been very specific as to the wording that can be used by a CA notary performing jurat notarizations in CA. Now, if these were notarized in another state, that's another story.

So, let your attorney know, and let he/she take it from there. That is, of course, if you want to contest whatever the document applies to.

Terri
Lancaster, CA
CA Notary Instructor (2005 - 2007)