Posted by JanetK_CA on 4/22/09 1:25am
Msg #285867

Again?! What would you do?

Once again, I have a package with a Subordination Agreement where the guy who notarized the signature of the lender representative completed two notary certificates for his signer. What he has apparently done is also complete the extra CA All Purpose Ack that was undoubtedly included for me, with the name and date of his signer. (And again without any extra information that would tie it to a specific document. I posted about this not too long ago - and this is the very same notary.)

Would you return the extra ack with the package or shred it and risk allowing it to be used inappropriately? My gut says that it is not up to me to fix another notary's error - and last time I sent back all that I received - plus my own certificate, of course. This time, instead of just sending a note, I think I'll make a phone call.

The notary is from St. Louis County, MO. Anyone have any idea how I might locate him to "help" him get the concept? What's really scary is that he is apparently in a position to be notarizing Sub. Agrmnts for a major lender and could be doing this on a very regular basis. Oy Vey!! It boggles the mind...

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/22/09 1:44am
Msg #285868

Jeez, Louise. Honest to goodness? I'd shred. It's the

right thing to do for the borrowers. With all the free-wheeling still going on - the risks of borrowers getting the short end of the CYA stick is huge, and loose acks are all-to-potential poison.

Phone call, great idea, but zounds, I'm all about looking out for my neighbors.

As to locating the perp, does MO SOS have a website to locate notaries? Maybe you could start there.

Reply by PAW on 4/22/09 7:27am
Msg #285881

Re: Jeez, Louise. Honest to goodness? I'd shred. It's the

With all due respect, I would not touch, much less shred, another person's documents, even if I thought it was in error. It certainly is not the second notary's job to police the first notary's work. Likewise, it is not with the notary's purview to determine whether or not the first notary did their job correctly.

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 4/22/09 2:09am
Msg #285869

I was in a rare position today, being able to observe another notary doing "my" job. This CA notary claims to be working as a notary for 10 years.
This was a purchase transaction. When notarizing the DOT for this California property, he did not remove the capacity claimed (ie; husband and wife) from the pre-printed acknowledgement, ( we CA notaries, cannot include capacity with the signers names on our certificates). The correct fix would be to line out the extra verbage, or attach a loose certificate. Next he did not attach a loose cert with the limited POA, when it clearly did not have the correct CA verbage, and last, but not least, did not have the signers take an oath, or attach or stamp the correct Jurat wording, when notarizing the signature affidavits. All jurats taken in CA, must have CA wording, it does not matter where the document will go. His response? (my paraphrasing) " Even though it is a CA property, the lender may have headquarters elsewhere, where this paperwork will be housed, so I don't need to follow CA law, since it isn't really a CA recordable document- (talking about everything BUT the DOT) and besides, the lender might not accept my cross-outs on the notary acknowledgement, or accept a loose/attached certificate, because I have had that happen before with this lender" (so not true!!! I do several a month for this big bank, and have never had an issue. Then I asked about the DOT which is a recordable document...again, same answer, the county might reject it, if I cross out the capacity. Too bad... he gave a really great presantation of the loan docs, but hasn't a clue about CA notary law.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/22/09 2:17am
Msg #285871

Ugh... that's frustrating. I'd totally report him to the SOS.

Sadly, a lot of notaries don't know their own laws.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/22/09 2:14am
Msg #285870

Again? Really?? Once could be a momentary lapse of sanity...but twice? Clearly, this notary doesn't know what he's doing, and it should be brough tto his attention.

I knwo that if I were doing something like that, I'd want someone to point it out.

You can search for the notary here, Janet:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/Notary/NotarySearch/NotarySearch.aspx

Unfortunately, it won't give you any contact information.


I dunno, if it were me, I'd contact a few people by phone and tell them it's an ongoing issue.


I don't get it though...why would any competent notary complete two identical certificates for the same signature? I mean... that's basic level stuff, right?

Reply by Stamper_WI on 4/22/09 2:30am
Msg #285872

Some states, like Wi currently do not require educational courses.
Luckily, WI adopts what ever the national uniform code which is currently being revised and calls for an education class. Even long time commisioned notaries would be required to take the class at next renewal.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/22/09 3:09am
Msg #285874

Here's the scariest part...

My gut was telling me that the last time this happened it was from a different client. I did a search for my last post about this (msg. 284444), then checked the date. Sure enough, it was a completely different client, different lender, too, I'm sure. (The HELOC or 2nd being subordinated was from a different "biggie" lender.) I wouldn't be at all surprised if the notary is an employee of the person who signed off on the Sub. Agrmt. and is probably doing this on a routine basis! (It's comforting to know that my memory hasn't completely left me in the lurch! )

Well, at least I now have two potential sources for tracking this guy down...

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 4/22/09 5:16am
Msg #285875

Janet, If You'd Send Me a PM...

...with this guy's name I might be able to do some bird-dogging for you as I'm located in St Louis County.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/22/09 1:43pm
Msg #285927

Thanks Dennis! Done!

As I mentioned in my private email to Dennis, I think this is something that we should all be concerned about as a community, since there now is evidence that these errors are going out in many directions. That increases the likelihood that someone will be tempted to make inappropriate use of one of these extra certificates.

Reply by MW/VA on 4/22/09 8:06am
Msg #285884

I understand "due diligence", but I wouldn't alter another notary's work in any way.
What in your notary law would grant you that authority??? At most, I would attach a note & make the phone call. IMO, anything else is UPL. Those CA laws are confusing to the rest of us. I will often get that separate CA "All Purpose" Ack included in a pkg that comes from a CA lender, tc, or ss. What's the purpose of that? If I notarize every document requiring it, there should be no need for this. I'm always conflicted whether to complete it or not.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/22/09 10:15am
Msg #285894

Not even those of us in CA understand that practice. An extra certificate form is just that -- extra. It's just a blank form and is meaningless on it's own.

I never, ever complete that extra form. If anyone dared call me on it, I'd be happy to refer them to the various CA codes that tell me it's illegal to do it, and asking me to do it is illegal, too. That's just for CA of course... but you shouldn't have to fill out a spare cert either.

I don't think it's UPL to see that another notary completely fouled up and take the professional responsibility to report him. I wouldn't mess with his work at all...but I'd feel it my duty to make sure it gets corrected, or at least make somebody aware that it needs to be corrected.

Reply by davidK/CA on 4/22/09 10:33am
Msg #285899

I think sending the "extra" acknowledgements onto to the TC company is participating in a potential fraud. I would shred them and move forward with just what is required under CA law.

If it turns out that these "extra" acknowledgements were needed, it's likely that the first notary would be happy to backdate another set or two. Heck, he could easily leave blank the situs, name and date information to make it easy for the TC.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/22/09 11:10am
Msg #285905

Re: Again?! What would you do? About those "extra"

acks...>>"All Purpose" Ack included in a pkg that comes from a CA lender, tc, or ss. What's the purpose of that? If I notarize every document requiring it, there should be no need for this. I'm always conflicted whether to complete it or not.<<

I've seen tons of those too. When I first started, and came across my first 'extra,' I called SS/TC for an explanation. Was told to complete it, return with package - that it was "just in case something happened to another ack." I called our SOS for direction, since this was in direct opposition to OR notary law, and was comforted to hear I was correct in ignoring this request.

Over the years, there have been many strange acks by other notaries in split packages - and no, I certainly never alter others' acks (i.e., where my borrower here in Oregon wasn't lined out.) I've used sticky notes, made phone calls to give a heads-up, but never altered another's ack.

However, when I've come across that 'extra' ack blithely completed by the first notary - I just can't, in good conscience, jeopardize my borrower by letting it slide. I've never heard a peep from anyone. If that's UPL, so be it, but I don't believe it is.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/22/09 2:08pm
Msg #285930

This has nothing to do with CA law

There was an ack certificate (that I believe is correct for his state) on the same page as the signatures, that he completed and notarized. Anyone who is familiar with Subordination Agreements knows that both the lender rep and the borrower(s) have to sign and be notarized. The second certificate should have been ignored by the first notary and left for the second notary. I also would never (and have never) touch(ed) another notary's work - and I have had too many opportunities to count, sadly.

As for that extra acknowledgement page, no one should ever be conflicted about it. This is a slam dunk certainty, in my opinion. I completely agree with this statement by MW/VA: "If I notarize every document requiring it, there should be no need for this." Absolutely correct. I see those all the time and always return them blank. No one has ever said anything and they keep calling me back. Again, I believe this has nothing to do with any state's notary laws, but everything to do with general good notary practices. (These clients are in different states outside of CA, for what it's worth.)

BTW, I checked with the settlement agent on this signing and he confirmed that I should do what I did the first time, which is to attach a note and send everything back. I don't think I really have a choice (as with all the other notary errors I've seen), but man, it makes me squirm! Clearly, the note I sent back to the other escrow officer didn't have any impact. I hope this one is different. If not, maybe Dennis will be successful in helping to tracking him down. Let's hope!

Reply by CA/Notary on 4/23/09 12:29am
Msg #286018

First off, I would not destroy anything. Call the signing company and advise them of the problem. It is better if they are aware of a problem so they can and correct a problem as soon as possible so they do not loose the title company as a client. Document in your journal and it is no longer your problem. Who better to help him, than the signing company. You learn from errors.