Posted by christiSocal on 2/12/08 2:23pm
Msg #235036

Calif question

SOS is closed.
I'm doing a signing for a property in TX. Tx likes both a Ack and a Jurat on the same page. Anyone know if there would be any problem with me printing the new Ack and Jurat on 1 paper? I don't think so, but want to double check. TIA!

Reply by SOCAL/CA on 2/12/08 2:45pm
Msg #235041

Check your PM.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/12/08 3:41pm
Msg #235049

I think it is a good idea.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/12/08 6:07pm
Msg #235065

Check with TC as to whether they want you to use a CA ack/jurat. I just did a signing for a TX property and I notarized both ack & jurat on same page and TC informed me to use the Texas ones already included, not California's.

Again, check with the TC as to whether they even want you using CA ack & jurat. I also did an Oklahoma loan and the CA ack & jurats were okay to use. The TC will clarify and confirm. It's different for every loan. Some say okay to use CA acks and jurats for properties outside of CA and others want their state's acks and jurats used. Always verify with the TC, don't guess.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/12/08 6:15pm
Msg #235066

Good advice, LKT.

However, the California Ack and Jurat are so close to the Texas ones that it seems ridiculous for a Texas TC to split hairs over it.

What kind of affidavit is it, Christi?

Reply by GWest on 2/12/08 6:30pm
Msg #235071

You can use another states acknowledgement "provided the form does not require the notary public to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determilnations and cerficiations not allowed by California Law" but you can not use any other states wording for a jurat, it must be the California wording not matter where the property is or the document is filed.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/12/08 6:34pm
Msg #235072

plus, you can only use another state's acknowledgment if it's on a recordable document, otherwise you need to stick to CA wording.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/12/08 7:44pm
Msg #235079

Just read this after posting my previous response. If the document is requiring a jurat and an ack, then it's likely that it is an affidavit which may be recorded...hence the addition of the ack.

Moving on, I guess what you're saying then is a the jurat MUST be a Ca. jurat no matter what.

Interesting discussion...finally something aside from "they didn't pay me for four months but they finally did so at least they are trying."

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/13/08 12:32am
Msg #235096

"If the document is requiring a jurat and an ack, then it's likely that it is an affidavit which may be recorded...hence the addition of the ack."

Yeah, but "may be recorded" isn't quite good enough. What if it's not recorded? Then you've just done an illegal notarization.

The only thing I'll notarize with another state's ack wording are Deeds of Trust or Grant/QC/Interspousal deeds because I know for a fact that those will be recorded. Everything else gets CA wording, which is never the wrong choice as it's ALWAYS legal to use that in CA.

And yeah, the jurat must be the CA one, no matter what.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/12/08 6:39pm
Msg #235073

This is terrible advice Lisa

"Again, check with the TC as to whether they even want you using CA ack & jurat"

The TC doesn't get to decide these things, CA notary law is what decides these things. How long have you been a notary? You really should know better.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/12/08 7:41pm
Msg #235078

Re: This is terrible advice Lisa - Cali, do you mean if

it is on a Tx property that the Ca. notary doesn't have a choice to use either?

Texas does have that choice as long as the certificates reasonably agree with the Texas certificates.

Since the Title Company folk can get picky and paranoid about what will/won't record, I didn't see LKTs advice as completely out of the ballpark.

Quite honestly though, if it were me, I wouldn't ask them whether or not I needed to use one certificate or the other. I'd make that decision and be prepared to defend it if I had to. Maybe that's what you are getting at.

In my work, when I get a CA ack back on a Texas property it's not a big deal...the only problem is that attaching it causes a higher recording fee if it is a recordable. And, in my county they will accept CA acks.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/12/08 8:38pm
Msg #235082

Re: This is terrible advice Lisa - Cali, do you mean if

Re: your first question, as stated above, we have no choice when it comes to the jurat. However, we "...may compete an acknowledgment form REQUIRED [emphasis my own] in another state or jurisdiction of the Uinted States on documents to be filed in that other state or jurisdiction provided..." [see GWEST's post above for rest of sentence with exceptions].

"Quite honestly though, if it were me, I wouldn't ask them whether or not I needed to use one certificate or the other. I'd make that decision and be prepared to defend it if I had to. Maybe that's what you are getting at."

I'd assume the same thing about Cali's post -- and would agree with you both.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/12/08 8:57pm
Msg #235083

My advice was correct per the CA/SOS

Civil Code 1189 states: (a) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state shall be in the following form: ack form, I won't type the entire thing.

(b) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall be sufficient in this state if it is taken in accordance with the laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made.

(c) On documents to be filed in another state or jurisdiction of the United States, a California notary public may complete any acknowledgment form as may be required 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.

Other states acks can be used as long as the guidelines are followed. I suppose that it may not be necessary to ask, but I only mentioned making sure because when I did the TX loan, I called the TC about the borrowers initials being different in several places and the TC brought up the issue of using TX acks and jurats and not California ones and she was sort of insistent too.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/12/08 10:27pm
Msg #235086

In addition.....

Civil Code 1189 does not say the document has to be "recordable". It only says documents "filed" in another state or jurisdiction. I personally will not make the assumption that "recordable" and "filed (filable) mean the same thing.

The Civil Code does not even mention the jurat but the general information sections says "Any jurat taken within this state (CA) shall be in the following form: the new jurat form as of 1-1-08 that eliminates "personally known" and only has "proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence". The jurat is defined in Government Code 8202 and there's no mention of it in detail as is the acknowledgment. There is no mention of "any jurat taken outside this state".

Nor is it concretely stated that a jurat taken within California must be used at all times, regardless of whether a document is *filed* outside of California. Looks like a phone call is in order to the SOS for clarity.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/13/08 12:22am
Msg #235094

Re: In addition.....

"Nor is it concretely stated that a jurat taken within California must be used at all times, regardless of whether a document is *filed* outside of California"

If the code says "Any jurat taken within this state (CA) shall be in the following form" how is that not concrete to you? Any means any, that's about as concrete as you can get.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/13/08 12:27am
Msg #235095

Re: My advice was correct per the CA/SOS

"the TC brought up the issue of using TX acks and jurats and not California ones and she was sort of insistent too."

So what? We can be just as insistent that we're not going to do anything that doesn't follow CA law.

I still don't see how your advice was correct. CA law certainly doesn't state that a title company can make these kinds of decisions. And I think it's safe to say there are VERY few Texas title company employees who know CA notary law at all, let alone better than a CA notary. So why would you let a likely ignorant person make the decision of what you should do to follow the laws of your state? They can tell us how they want a lot of things done, but how to complete our notarizations is COMPLETELY our call, not theirs.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/13/08 11:57am
Msg #235139

Let me bottom-line this for ya, Cali....

<<<<We can be just as insistent that we're not going to do anything that doesn't follow CA law.>>>>

I just quoted you CA law (Civil Code 1189 states that I can use an ack from another state if the doc is filed in that other state so long as I do not establish capacity or etc, etc.,)....so you have no point here.

<<<<CA law certainly doesn't state that a title company can make these kinds of decisions.>>>>

Title companies make all kinds of decisions - some that only jeopardize the pay they offer if we don't follow (like the color ink pen to use, or call us in XX amount of time after the signing or we'll deduct X dollars from your fee) and others that will jeopardize our commission if we do follow (like notarizing a blank doc and they'll fill in later), or backdating). What they request that **complies with CA law**, I oblige. It's the TC's choice **when it doesn't jeopardize my commission**

<<<<And I think it's safe to say there are VERY few Texas title company employees who know CA notary law at all, let alone better than a CA notary. >>>>

It is my responsibility to know CA law and I do. What they requested did not violate it.

<<<<So why would you let a likely ignorant person make the decision of what you should do to follow the laws of your state? They can tell us how they want a lot of things done, but how to complete our notarizations is COMPLETELY our call, not theirs>>>

You're right and it was my call to acccept the request of completing the TX acks and jurats since that request fell within CA guidelines and rules, per the SOS. I just mentioned that the TC was insistent to show the variances in how some TC's want their docs signed. While one TC will allow mistakes to be corrected on the docs (line thru wrong middle initial of name and write correct one, then borrower initials the correction)...another TC doesn't want a mark on the docs, they want the correction made in the system and a new set printed. Like Burger King, each TC wants it "their way". So long as their way matches the CA/SOS's way, I'm okay with that.

It doesn't mean because someone is adamant about an instruction that I would violate the law. I will go to jail for no one. I value my freedom. I've had TC's adamant about doing illegal acts. One wanted to argue with me and told me she could easily get another Notary to do "that". I said, "You'll have to call another Notary because I'm not doing "that", goodbye (click).

<<<<I still don't see how your advice was correct.>>>>

I don't see how it's incorrect or illegal. I cannot do any better than quoting the law.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/13/08 3:47pm
Msg #235189

Re: Let me bottom-line this for ya, Cali....

"You're right and it was my call to acccept the request of completing the TX acks and jurats since that request fell within CA guidelines and rules, per the SOS. I just mentioned that the TC was insistent to show the variances in how some TC's want their docs signed."

YOU CAN NEVER USE ANOTHER STATE'S JURAT WORDING. Why are you having such a hard time with that concept?

"I just quoted you CA law (Civil Code 1189 states that I can use an ack from another state if the doc is filed in that other state so long as I do not establish capacity or etc, etc.,)....so you have no point here"

Sure I do. I'm well aware of what the law is. And there is still no reason to call the TC to get an answer. Either it's something you can legally use another state's wording on, or it's not. If it is, then just do it, no reason to call the TC. If it's not, then why bother finding out what the TC wants if you can't do it anyway? It's our job as notaries to be able to do these things without having to get outside input.

"I just mentioned that the TC was insistent to show the variances in how some TC's want their docs signed."

So what, do you call the TC before every signing to find out what their little quirks are? I'm not sure I'm seeing your point with this one. I was never talking about how they want the docs signed, I was strictly referring to notarization wording.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/13/08 7:10pm
Msg #235206

If you are indeed right....

.........I want to read where you are right, not just because you say so but because the law says so.

<<<YOU CAN NEVER USE ANOTHER STATE'S JURAT WORDING. Why are you having such a hard time with that concept??>>>

Okay, I searched for it and didn't see it in the handbook. I'd like to read that....where is it?

<<<So what, do you call the TC before every signing to find out what their little quirks are? >>>

Did you not read where I said I called the TC about something else and THEY brought up the issue? Did I not say that? Okay...now, the original poster posed the question as to what she should do about acks/jurats on the same page for TX property, and she specified TX property. Since her answer cannot be found in the handbook, my suggestion was to call the TC and not to guess.

The jurat for the TX property began "subscribed and sworn (or affirm) to...." There was no issue with that.

<<<Sure I do. I'm well aware of what the law is.>>>

You must not be since you claimed in your other post that notarizations MUST be CA ones acks/jurats no matter what, particularly for "recordable" docs. No where in the law does it say EITHER. Show me where it STATES jurats must be CA wording if doc is filed outside of CA.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/13/08 10:00pm
Msg #235218

Re: If you are indeed right....

I suggest you read Terri's message below -- or again, if you already have. The handbook states that "any jurat taken within this state shall be in the following form: ...". [See page 12 of the PDF version of the latest handbook from the SOS site.] It does NOT go on to provide for any exceptions, as the acknowledgment description does. To me -- and apparently most other CA notaries who have responded -- that means NO EXCEPTIONS whatsoever for the verbiage for jurats notarized within the state of California. (Whether or not one does both a jurat and ack is beside the point, as is whether or not they go on the same page, imo.) As previously noted here, we can use the ack form required in other states (with the noted qualifications), but that does not apply to jurats. To your last point, where does it say that jurats filed outside of CA can be any different than the form it states they "... shall be..."?

You may want to go back and reread your posts. This is a critical point that you should be clear on before doing any more signings for out of state properties.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/13/08 11:58pm
Msg #235225

Re: If you are indeed right....

<<<The handbook states that "any jurat taken within this state shall be in the following form: ...". >>>

Yet it does not go on to say what jurat wording is accepted ****if the doc is filed in another state****, as the Acknowledgment rule does. The Acknowledgment rule is clear on this but the jurat rule is only HALF clear. It omits a very important part. I know exactly what the law says as I quoted it and don't need to reread what I wrote because I know what I wrote and I don't need to reread what Terri or anyone else wrote. I only need to call the SOS as they have the final say so on this very important missing 2nd half of the jurat rule.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/14/08 12:07am
Msg #235226

Good lord, are you really this thick?

Nothing is omitted. Just because the Ack rule has the additional caveat doesn't mean the jurat should have one. If it's not there it's because IT DOESN'T EXIST. What is in the handbook is the law, period. There is no "very important missing 2nd half of the jurat rule" anywhere other than in your head.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/14/08 12:09am
Msg #235227

Re: If you are indeed right....

"No where in the law does it say EITHER. Show me where it STATES jurats must be CA wording if doc is filed outside of CA."

It doesn't state that, it states that *ANY* jurat done in CA must have CA wording. Now if you're too dense to understand what the word "any" means in this context, there's really nothing more I can do to help you.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/14/08 4:41pm
Msg #235323

At least we can say we tried... n/m

Reply by Terri Garner on 2/13/08 2:17pm
Msg #235168

Re: This is terrible advice Lisa

Actually, there's nothing in CA LAW that prohibits the CA notary from performing both types of notarization on one document, regardless of where it came from or where it's going, provided that the CA notary uses the correct certificate wording for the type of notarization they are performing.

So, if there is an acknowledgment, the CA notary can use the wording on the document, provided it's the required wording for that other state and it's going back to that other state to be filed. Then to perform the jurat, it has to be CA wording. The CA notary would make two entries in their journal showing the two notarizations, one an acknowledgment and one a Jurat.

Terri
Lancaster, CA

Reply by kathy/ca on 2/13/08 3:27pm
Msg #235185

I agree with Terri and have done this in the past. n/m

Reply by christiSocal on 2/12/08 11:52pm
Msg #235091

Sorry, had to run before anyone responded.

I ended up playing it safe and just attached both. Last year, when I needed to, I just used my handy-dandy NotRot Jurat stamp. But I haven't ordered my new one yet and Ca is getting soo picky!
Sos was closed today. Mail came and the bank was open, so whats up with them??? I am going to call them tomorrow.
Here's the wording Brenda

Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 12th day of Feb 2008, be J. Doe and Jo Doe
My sig

This instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of Feb 2008, by J. Doe and Jo Doe
My sig

I do find the differences between states very interesting...