Posted by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 4:36pm
Msg #235320

Called the CA/SOS about Jurats....

...this morning. (916) 653-3595 Spoke with "Pam", who would not give her last name but said she's the only Pam in the office. I asked her this question:

The handbook says that for Acks used for docs filed outside of CA, particularly loan docs, it is okay to use the other states Ack wording, but the handbook is silent on that it issue for Jurats. It only speaks of Jurats executed within the state. Since the handbook is silent on this issue, if a doc is filed outside of CA, specifically loan docs, can a Notary use another states Jurat wording?

Pam's response: Yes, if the doc is filed outside of CA, a Notary CAN utilize the other state's Jurat wording, following all other rules. You may call Pam yourself to verify this.

The moral to this story is this: If you have to answer for your actions someday, you had better be ready to say "Since the handbook did not clarify this or was silent on the issue, I called the CA SOS and they are the ones that said so". Your friends Daisy Duck, Batman, or Betty Boop on the forums cannot save your commission or save your rear end from a lawsuit. Stop blindly agreeing with people because you like them and they are your friends on forums. Know the laws for yourselves and if you are unsure, call all the appropriate agencies. Daisy Duke, Batman and Betty Boop mean well and truely want to give you what they believe is the right information, but it's ultimately your responsibility alone to know.

Reply by Phillip/TX on 2/14/08 4:38pm
Msg #235321

Great Post LKT/CA!!!! n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 4:38pm
Msg #235322

To Clarify....

The handbook doesn't mention anything about loan docs, it just says "docs filed..........when I posed the question to Pam I asked specifically about loan docs.

Reply by janCA on 2/14/08 5:13pm
Msg #235335

Re: To Clarify....

I understand where you're coming from, Lisa, but I do have to comment on the CA SOS. The few times that I have called them, I have to say, they would stumble over their words, and what they were telling me and what is stated in the book just did not mesh. I realize they are suppose to be the "authority" on notary law, but many things in our handbook are quite vague and sometimes the answers we are receiving from the SOS, I believe, are just the interpretation of the person you are speaking with. I'm not saying take it with a grain of salt, I'm glad you've noted who you have spoken with, just in case there are problems down the line. I even wonder if the people in the notary division are practicing notaries.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 5:34pm
Msg #235342

Re: To Clarify....

I understand what you're saying, but since the CA SOS makes the notary laws and rules, who else can we receive clarification and direction from? And if they stumble and give wrong information, there's still some saving grace in that the wrong info came straight from the horses mouth. A Notary is sunk in a lawsuit when the wrong information came from Daisy Duck, Batman, or Betty Boop, their friends on the forums.

Reply by Marlene/USNA on 2/15/08 7:47am
Msg #235418

Don't kid yourself. . .

A notary is also sunk in a lawsuit when the wrong information comes from "Pam" at the SOS office. Do you think "Pam" is going to appear in court on your behalf or argue your side with your insurance company? Or the SOS, for that matter?

Unless you have it in writing on SOS letterhead over the signature of the SOS' counsel, don't assume it's gospel.

Reply by sue_pa on 2/15/08 9:46am
Msg #235431

oh so true

until a few years ago when you called the SOS their pat answer to everything was ... because PAN says so. About 7 or so years ago I wanted to know why I couldn't charge a travel fee (because PAN says so) but I didn't like that answer since no one could give me any basis for it. I finally found Crystal an attorney with the SOS and I explained my dilemna to her - used the example of travelling to a nursing home or hospital for $2.00. She went to the chief counsel and I was told it was okay as long as fees were disclosed up front. I asked for and received a letter from him which I held onto for a long time. Oh how I miss her - she was always easily accessible and filled with common sense.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/15/08 2:09pm
Msg #235482

Re: Don't kid yourself. . .

<<<A notary is also sunk in a lawsuit when the wrong information comes from "Pam" at the SOS office.>>>

Not necessarily. She is an employee of the State, working in the Notary division answering questions on behalf of the State of CA. She's not running a fruit stand on the corner and was dragged into the offices to answer phones, she's their representative. And if she answers wrong as their representative, my damages will be minimal to none as she will take the hit. Therefore, she had better be giving out correct answers as the STATE'S liable for what their employees say as Notaries will be acting on their advice.

<<<Do you think "Pam" is going to appear in court on your behalf or argue your side with your insurance company?>>>

If Pam is subpoenaed to testify, she doesn't have a choice.

<<<Unless you have it in writing on SOS letterhead over the signature of the SOS' counsel, don't assume it's gospel.>>>

That is excellent advice and I will do just that.

Reply by BBuchler/CA on 2/14/08 4:49pm
Msg #235324

Thanks so much. n/m

Reply by Terri Garner on 2/14/08 5:01pm
Msg #235328

I always want to be safe, I will always use a CA Acknowledgment and/or CA Jurat wording since I am performing the notarization in CA. If the other state has issue with that, then they can contact the CA SOS themselves. I'm a CA notary performing in the state of CA. Since it is not required of me by CA notary Law to know what the other state's notary wording requirements are, I fall back on using wording according to CA notary handbook.

That way there's no having to worry about the wording. I don't analyze, I notarize.

Terri
Lancaster, CA

Reply by kathy/ca on 2/14/08 5:06pm
Msg #235330

Exactly what I do and always have done! Never a problem! n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 6:56pm
Msg #235360

<<<I always want to be safe, I will always use a CA Acknowledgment and/or CA Jurat wording since I am performing the notarization in CA.>>>

That's what I do and already had my CA acks/jurats prepared and attached to the docs. Then I called about something else and the TC made it a point to instruct me to use theirs acks/jurats.

<<<Since it is not required of me by CA notary Law to know what the other state's notary wording requirements are, I fall back on using wording according to CA notary handbook.>>>

Since this TC instructed me to use Texas acks/jurats already preprinted, I hope they did their job and typed the correct wording as it is their responsibility to provide correct ack/jurat wording. I am not required to know nor do I intend to learn other states notarial wording. If it doesn't record or comes back, it's their problem not mine.

<<<I don't analyze, I notarize.>>>

Me too. That's why I didn't argue with the Texas TC or insist on using CA acks/jurats. Their request was within CA/SOS law and I obliged.

Reply by docs1954CA on 2/14/08 5:02pm
Msg #235329

I'm a little confused...

" It only speaks of Jurats executed within the state. Since the handbook is silent on this issue, if a doc is filed outside of CA, specifically loan docs, can a Notary use another states Jurat wording?

Pam's response: Yes, if the doc is filed outside of CA, a Notary CAN utilize the other state's Jurat wording, following all other rules.

But we are always executing the Jurat within the state of California, so why does it matter where it's filed?

Reply by GWest on 2/14/08 5:10pm
Msg #235333

Re: I'm a little confused...

I agree. The handbook states under Government Code, section 8202 it states "To ANY affidavit subscribed and sworn to before a notary, there shal be attached a jurat in the following form" then goes on to give the wording for a California Jurat. There is no exception for out of state jurats. Under Government Code 1189 it addresses the issue of out of state acknowledgements. I personally will continue to use the California Acknowledgement wording on ALL Jurats. JMHO

Reply by SOCAL/CA on 2/14/08 5:13pm
Msg #235336

Re: I'm a little confused...

Amen GWest!

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 5:18pm
Msg #235338

Re: I'm a little confused...

<<<<There is no exception for out of state jurats.>>>>

That is not true. The CA handbook is SILENT on whether a Notary can use another states jurat wording for docs filed outside of CA. SOS cleared that up for me.

<<<<I personally will continue to use the California Acknowledgement wording on ALL Jurats.>>>>

So will I, unless the out-of-state TC gives instructions otherwise.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/14/08 5:41pm
Msg #235345

Re: I'm a little confused...

"That is not true. The CA handbook is SILENT on whether a Notary can use another states jurat wording for docs filed outside of CA"

The CA handbook is also SILENT on whether or not I'm supposed to administer oaths in Pig Latin. I guess I need to call the SOS office and clarify. The CA handbook is also SILENT on whether someone can used smeared poop instead of ink when signing a notarized document. I guess I need to call the SOS office and clarify.

Sorry you got bum info from the SOS office, but if it ain't in the notary handbook, it ain't notary law. You really think "Pam told me it was OK" is going to hold up in a courtroom? Why every single other CA notary on this board seems to easily understand that but you don't is quite interesting, and doesn't exactly reflect positively on your critical thinking skills.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 6:01pm
Msg #235350

Re: I'm a little confused...

<<<<The CA handbook is also SILENT on whether or not I'm supposed to administer oaths in Pig Latin. I guess I need to call the SOS office and clarify. The CA handbook is also SILENT on whether someone can used smeared poop instead of ink when signing a notarized document.>>>>

The CA handbook is also silent on whether CaliNotary has his/her head up their a**!!!

<<<<You really think "Pam told me it was OK" is going to hold up in a courtroom? >>>>

You really think "CaliNotary on the notary forum told me it was OK" is going to hold up in the courtroom?

<<<<Sorry you got bum info from the SOS office,...>>>>

Sorry, I got bum info from YOU!

<<<<Why every single other CA notary on this board seems .....>>>>

And why every single other CA notary on this board is heading straight for the cliff....the biggest foul mouth doesn't win an argument....

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/14/08 5:36pm
Msg #235344

Re: I'm a little confused...

"I personally will continue to use the California Acknowledgement wording on ALL Jurats."

Do I assume correctly that you mean "CA Jurat" wording on all Jurats?

Reply by kathy/ca on 2/14/08 5:45pm
Msg #235347

Janet, I took it to mean what you said, I think they made an

error in they way it was posted making it even more confusing. OI hope one of the posters that said they will continue to use CA Ack language on all CA Jurats will clarify that it was said in error. Ie, CA JURAT (not Ack) language on all CA Jurats.

Reply by GWest on 2/14/08 11:14pm
Msg #235402

Re: I'm a little confused...

Yes, my typing got away from me. I did mean that I would use Ca Jurat wording on all Jurats.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 5:15pm
Msg #235337

Re: I'm a little confused...

<<<But we are always executing the Jurat within the state of California, so why does it matter where it's filed? >>>

If the docs are filed in CA, the acks and jurats must have CA notarial verbiage. If the docs are to be filed in another state and has that states notarial verbiage preprinted, you may use CA's but you may also use the other states. If the originator of those docs is silent, then use CA's.

In an example I gave in another post, the Texas TC was not silent and in fact instructed me to use their states notarial verbiage for the jurat and since what they asked complies with CA/SOS law, I obliged.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/14/08 5:33pm
Msg #235341

Well, because this is such an important issue, I decided to call the SOS office myself. The answer I got is that there are NO exceptions, regardless of where the doc is to be filed. You said "It only speaks of Jurats executed within the state." None of us commissioned in CA are allowed to execute docs outside of the state, so ALL the jurats we execute, as CA NPs, are done within the state. And both from what I read in the handbook and what the person I spoke to said (in very clear terms) is that there are no exceptions, ALL jurats must used the specified wording.

I assume that the fact that the issue of jurats filed out of state is not addressed is an intentional omission. It was intentionally included for acks and if they meant for it to be applied to jurats, they would have said so. If you read the actual law code, in relation to nearly anything, the language is very specific, to the point of repeating certain verbiage over and over so as to avoid any question of its intent. This stuff is written by lawyers and I'm sure is carefully put together. It's not our job to second guess or look for things that the law may be silent on. It's our job to accept what the law says AS IT IS WRITTEN.

As for the handbook not clarifying this issue, I don't agree and neither did Ania at the SOS office. Here is exactly what it says and no more: "Any jurat taken within this state shall be in the following form:". Period, end of sentence. When there are exceptions, they are spelled out.

BTW, the fact that I am following up on this has nothing to do with you. It's only because I believe this to be an extremely critical issue for CA notaries and I didn't want to leave any doubts for newbies, etc. I suspect Pam at the SOS office may have thought you were talking about docs "executed" vs. "filed" out of state. And FWIW, I personally agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph. My opinion is my own and will never be influenced by someone who I may like or be friends with on any forum. (I realize you probably meant that as a general statement.) It's just that my personal opinion is that the handbook/legal code IS very clear on this issue. Second guessing something that you may think the law is silent on can be dangerous -- as well as going by advice from someone over the phone. The ultimate way to protect yourself on something like this, if it is a concern for you, is to consult with an attorney yourself.

Reply by docs1954CA on 2/14/08 5:42pm
Msg #235346

That was my point also...

We, as California commissioned NP's can only Notarize within California. It makes absolutely no difference where the document will be filed, we have to follow the laws of our state.I would not take ANY instructions from a out of state TC on how to follow the laws here in CA.If the verbiage on their jurat is IDENTICAL to Ca, then fine.JMHO.

Reply by CaliNotary on 2/14/08 5:48pm
Msg #235348

"It's only because I believe this to be an extremely critical issue for CA notaries and I didn't want to leave any doubts for newbies, etc"

That's the funny part though, the way the law is written there really isn't any room for doubt. "Any Jurat" is about as clear as you can possibly be, and if there are no exceptions listed, then it obviously applies to any and every and all jurats done in CA.

Just because one person has a really f'ed up thinking process doesn't mean the statute is remotely vague. Cause it ain't.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 6:03pm
Msg #235351

<<<<Just because one person has a really f'ed up thinking process doesn't mean the statute is remotely vague. Cause it ain't.>>>>

Looks like the mirror's clear.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 6:12pm
Msg #235352

Well, I called the SOS back...

...and spoke to a Monique and THEN Ania. Ania said she just quoted you what was in the handbook and did NOT say this <The answer I got is that there are NO exceptions, regardless of where the doc is to be filed.> She didn't even know the answer.

I figured you asked a question to get the answer you wanted. Monique put me on hold to clarify then came back and said "Yes, another state's jurat wording can be used for docs filed outside of CA".

My opinion is that the handbook is NOT clear on the jurat wording to use when a doc is filed out of state and that the silence of it does not mean the rule doesn't exist. But I have clarity from the SOS. People here can continue to listen to and blindly agree and "amen" Batman, Betty Boop and Daisy Duck and when their butts get in a sling and they get sued, they only have themselves to blame.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 6:38pm
Msg #235357

Bottom line on this isssue is

Everyone has words of wisdom and great advice to add to the board. There's nothing like learning from the experience of others, but readers, particularly new Notaries need to understand they need to be careful and not rely on Batman and Minnie Mouse to clarify notary laws of their state, but that the SOS (or whoever makes and governs notary laws) has the final say so. And if the SOS is wrong, it will still fare better for the Notary to say they called the SOS and the SOS said so as opposed to Betty Boop and Daisy Duck on the forums told them.

Reply by docs1954CA on 2/14/08 6:48pm
Msg #235359

Re: Bottom line on this isssue is

I guess you are missing the point here....hearsay is hearsay,whether it comes from the SOS or some posters here.The fact that the first person you spoke to at the SOS office didn't want to give you a last name tells me she wasn't that confident, or knowlegable with her answers. If you can get someone to put in writing what they are telling you, you might have something to hold onto.If it's not within the four corners of the page, it doesn't count.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 7:03pm
Msg #235362

Re: Bottom line on this isssue is

<<<If you can get someone to put in writing what they are telling you, you might have something to hold onto.>>>

You've got a point. May be worth a try to see if they'll do that.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/14/08 7:17pm
Msg #235369

Re: Bottom line on this isssue -- here's mine...

What is in writing that counts to me is this, directly from the State of California Government Code:

"8202
(b) To any affidavit subscribed and sworn to before a notary, there shall be attached a jurat in the following form:
State of California
County of __________
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____ day of _____, 20__, by ____________________, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me.

Seal ____________________
Signature________________"

Paragraph (a) basically says an oath should be administered, the person should be ID'd using satisfactory evidence and that the affiant should sign the document. There are no other paragraphs. Paragraph (b) used to say "...substantially in the following form". They chose to take out the word "substantially" from previous versions of this Code, and I believe it was done with intent.

I choose to take it at face value and not read between the lines. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

There is one thing I AM confused about.... Are you saying I'm Minnie Mouse? Or Betty Boop? (Or is it Donald Duck?) Or were those just meant in general? jk

Good discussion, BTW. I think tossing around these kinds of issues are what this board should be all about -- even if people disagree.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/14/08 7:26pm
Msg #235370

Re: Bottom line on this isssue -- here's mine...

<<<Are you saying I'm Minnie Mouse? Or Betty Boop? (Or is it Donald Duck?) Or were those just meant in general? jk

In general ;-)

<<<Good discussion, BTW. I think tossing around these kinds of issues are what this board should be all about -- even if people disagree.>>>

Absolutely! <smile!>

Reply by Marlene/USNA on 2/15/08 7:54am
Msg #235419

And you, Dear LKT. . .

. . .should not rely on the wisdom of Pam, Monique and Ania to clarify the notary laws of your state. You are talking to clerks in a government office. You need an interpretation from the Secretary of State's counsel on this issue, and you can ask for one, in writing, which is a far better course of action than claiming "the SOS said so."

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/15/08 2:24pm
Msg #235485

Re: And you, Dear LKT. . .

<<<.should not rely on the wisdom of Pam, Monique and Ania to clarify the notary laws of your state. You are talking to clerks in a government office.>>>>

And can be held liable for giving out wrong information that Notaries can act on. They are employees representing the CA SOS, therefore, they do not have license to spew out anything they want. If they are answering phones in the Notary division, they'd better know how to answer, or know how to get the answer. They're not just dismissed because they are office clerks. They are representative of the SOS and could be ordered to testify as to how they answer Notary callers questions. If the SOS felt they shouldn't be answering calls, they wouldn't allow it.

<<<You need an interpretation from the Secretary of State's counsel on this issue, and you can ask for one, in writing, which is a far better course of action than claiming "the SOS said so.">>>

I will do that as that is excellent advice, but I could still say "Suzy Q at the SOS said so". It would fare better than saying Bugs Bunny, Batman and Daffy Duck, the people on the forums said so.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/15/08 9:32pm
Msg #235550

Re: And you, Dear LKT. . .

<<And can be held liable for giving out wrong information that Notaries can act on. They are employees representing the CA SOS, therefore, they do not have license to spew out anything they want. If they are answering phones in the Notary division, they'd better know how to answer, or know how to get the answer. They're not just dismissed because they are office clerks. They are representative of the SOS and could be ordered to testify as to how they answer Notary callers questions. If the SOS felt they shouldn't be answering calls, they wouldn't allow it. >>

Please disclose whether or not your comments are your considered personal opinion or legal advice so others reading this board can make an informed conclusion as to whether or not to follow your recommendations or those of the majority responding here. (Not that I disagree with the comments above. I just disagree about the jurat issue, regardless of what anyone in the SOS office says.)

<<I will do that as that is excellent advice, but I could still say "Suzy Q at the SOS said so". It would fare better than saying Bugs Bunny, Batman and Daffy Duck, the people on the forums said so.>>

As Marlene indicated, I believe any third party opinion short of an attorney's would do you the slightest bit of good in a court of law. I agree we each have to consider the source in every case when opinions are being given, whether from the SOS office or on this board. And by the way, I do feel it's just a bit disengenous for you to dismissively refer to other opinions as cartoon characters and "their friends on the board" because they have a different interpretation from you. As for CaliNotary's remarks... what can I say? His style is very different from mine and I won't defend it, but I do respect his straightforwardness. And I find that, when it comes to notary issues I usually tend to agree with him. (And FWIW, we've never met or spoken off this board. I would doubt he would consider me a "friend"... )

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/16/08 3:53pm
Msg #235605

Correction...

<<As Marlene indicated, I believe any third party opinion short of an attorney's would do you the slightest bit of good in a court of law. >>

Should be "...I DON'T believe..."

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 2/15/08 12:45am
Msg #235404

I teach classes in CA

This what I teach and our study/student guides have been approved by the CA Sec of State page by page:

If the document to be notarized requires a jurat and the required jurat verbiage is not pre-printed on the form, you may use a jurat stamp.

Unlike ACK, all jurats completed in CA must have CA virbiage without regard to where they will be recorded.

If a document which requires a jurat does not have the new CA verbiage, you will need to add it or attach it to the document before sealing with the notary seal.

Reply by directnotary on 2/15/08 3:34am
Msg #235406

This new law has sure created a lot of additional work!

It's mid February, and I am still seeing a lot of loan packages without the new jurat wording and therefore have to attach the new forms. Sometimes to quite a few documents that need notarizing. It seems like they're using the new acknowledgments, but not the new jurats which I don't understand. NSA's should be getting paid more for all this additional work, but seems to me that some lenders are expecting NSA's to work for less because of the so called "slowdown." I don't know about everyone else, but in Southern California this has been the busiest month for me.

Reply by Dave_CA on 2/15/08 9:22am
Msg #235426

buy the CA jurat stamp

Even before the law change many loan docs had the wrong language for CA. I don't see the software being changed anytime soon so the stamp will continue to save time and $$$.
You can get a nice on here.