Posted by JanetK_CA on 4/11/09 1:17am
Msg #284444

An extra acknowledgement cert...

I did a package today that had a Subordination Agreement included which, of course, was already signed and notarized for the lender in question. The notary completed the certificate provided on the signature page, plus added another loose certificate for the same person! Both were stamped with his seal. (He was from MO, BTW -- in case you're out there and you know who you are....) To make matters worse, the certificate he used included the section at the bottom for optional information to tie that cert to a specific document. You guessed it -- he left it completely blank!

That certificate could be used on any other document with that bank official's name on it! To those of you who didn't already know it, this is a HUGE no-no!!!

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/11/09 3:30am
Msg #284446

***** READ ABOVE POST ***** Thanks, JanetK. This

would be an excellent chapter in a 'Useful Tips for a Remote Closer' manual.

A book of short, important, lessons, by example.

So well said. Raising a glass.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 4/11/09 7:24am
Msg #284449

"Raising a glass" in the middle of the night is a REALLY

bad sign. (LOL)
But good point

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/11/09 7:02pm
Msg #284512

Don't forget the 2(?) hour time difference... ;>) n/m

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/11/09 9:04am
Msg #284458

But the section for optional information is "optional", so filling in the information is optional.

The other part of your post I completely agree with.

Reply by Gary_CA on 4/11/09 12:31pm
Msg #284481

Yes and no...

it's optional, not legally required, but I feel it's a very important "best practice" to identify the document on the cert. Especially if you don't staple it, but even if you do.

It's a small, easy step, and it safeguard the integrity of the notarization.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/11/09 12:39pm
Msg #284484

Re: Yes and no...

It is definitely "best practice" to fill out the optional part, but as it is optional the notary did nothing wrong by not filling it out. Personally, I would fill it out.

Reply by Gary_CA on 4/11/09 12:51pm
Msg #284486

Fair enough, last argument.

You're right, the real offense was throwing in an extra cert and filling in optional info is, well, optional...

but...

by not filling that out the notary invites, nearly begs, someone to attach it to God only knows what. Thereby exasperating further the stupidity of putting in the extra cert in the first place.

Reply by John_NorCal on 4/11/09 1:10pm
Msg #284488

Quesion on this...

I've noted some past posts here where people say that they use an embosser to attach certs or acknowledgements to other papers. My question; by doing that they are leaving their seal on 2 papers, one of which may not have proper notarial wording. Aside from the fact that most jurisdictions such as Calif want a reproducible seal, can anyone see the possibility of an embossed seal being used improperly?

I too agree that the optional information should be filed out in order to tie the notarization into the correct document.

Reply by Gary_CA on 4/11/09 2:03pm
Msg #284493

Re: Quesion on this...

I can see the wisdom of embossing two pages together, or with half the seal on one and half on the other...

but the CA handbook makes it clear that either solution is verboten.

The handbook has spoken, case closed.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/11/09 5:21pm
Msg #284504

Re: Quesion on this...

Well, since the embosser alone is not a legal seal in CA (it's not reproducible) ... it could be argued that it isn't really an inappropriate use of the seal since embossing two pages together doesn't produce a clear embossment in my experience. I have an embosser, but I reserve it for those who ask for it specifically or for international documents. Thing is, if we use it to be reproducible then why reserve it for the gold seals? That becomes basically a second seal...but it isn't an official one since it isn't isn't reproducible.

I go back and forth on this... because when the handbook says we can't use our seal with the wording... the embossment is really an extension of an attached certificate... so how can it be improper. Of course, if the attached certificate were to disappear, then the signature page would have nothing but a faint impression from an embosser. I have no firm opinion of it either way, really.

I have seen, however, a notary who had a custom embosser... one that isn't a notary seal, but had some kind of really pretty monogram and she stamped underneath that, "This document contains an attached notarization with a matching embossed image." ...or something like that that she used in addition to her seal when embossing two pages together. I'd been considering doing something like that... because if the loose cert were to get lost, the embossed image could not be mistake for a real notarization and it would be clear something was missing. It would also prevent somebody from switching our another loose form, too, I'd think.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 4/11/09 11:42pm
Msg #284543

Re: Quesion on this... An embosser is reproducible

when properly inked and quite acceptable in CA

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/11/09 2:08pm
Msg #284494

Re: Question on this...

John
When I taught notary classes, I always suggested that if they were having to attach a certificate to other papers, as well as putting their seal on the certificate to also put the certificate and paper side by side and apply the seal so half is one the certificate and the other half is on the document, so they can be lined up to form the seal - or as well as using the seal on the certificate to use an embosser in the same manner.

The seal on the notary certificate will be fine, and reproducible.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/11/09 6:58pm
Msg #284510

Exactly! You got my point.

If there was only one acknowledgement completed, I probably wouldn't have even noticed the optional section - or wouldn't have much cared. But with the second acknowledgement being superfluous and without the info filled in, it would be very simple for someone to use that certificate inappropriately on another document. It almost makes me wonder if it was included in error. I suppose it's possible he notarized another document for that person and attached the certificate to the wrong one, but I don't know which would be worse!