Posted by jba/fl on 8/5/09 7:45pm
Msg #298844

And speaking of notary records, etc.,

I had a package come to me from CA. Using the same jurat we use: Sworn & subscribed before me A. Notary by John Doe who provided DL as ID.

Signed: A Notary
Stamped

That was it. Done last week too. Hmmmm - TC employee, bank employee - forgot exactly, but a business besides A. Notary, Mobile NSA.

I thought CA had such a big deal with their wordings - not in evidence here and recordable docs.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/5/09 7:58pm
Msg #298850

FL property?

Maybe this company has its ducks in a row and pays attention to be sure their acks and jurats and state compliant...

Isn't that a nice thought?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/5/09 8:00pm
Msg #298852

Re: FL property?...s\b ARE state compliant n/m

Reply by PAW on 8/5/09 8:06pm
Msg #298855

Doesn't make any difference where the property is

The notary certificates must be compliant in the state where the documents are executed. CA has some pretty strict wording rules, which is acceptable for FL.

Reply by GWest on 8/5/09 8:49pm
Msg #298862

Re: Doesn't make any difference where the property is

Per the California Handbook, with regard to a Jurat "Any jurat taken within this state shall be in the following form: 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"

With regard to an Acknowledgement, "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 orcertify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law".

Reply by GWest on 8/5/09 8:52pm
Msg #298863

Re: Doesn't make any difference where the property is

Just as a side note, we get in packages in California from California Lenders and Title Companies that still have the wrong verbage. I would say that happens in 50% of the packages I receive.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/5/09 10:00pm
Msg #298869

Re: Doesn't make any difference..yes it does

I had an ack the other day that stated "I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct"...I crossed it out as it's not FL compliant. Their acks may be acceptable in FL but I'm not certifying anything under the laws of the State of California..

MHO

Reply by PAW on 8/6/09 8:17am
Msg #298894

Re: Doesn't make any difference..yes it does

But you're NOT in California. Your acks and jurats must comply with Florida statutes. I said, "The notary certificates must be compliant in the state where the documents are executed." Juli was remarking the a California notary completed the notary certificate that was Florida compliant. The certificate should have been CA compliant since that's where the document was executed and notarized.

You were correct is voiding the CA ack and using a FL compliant act because you are in FL. The notary Juli was referring to was in CA, used a FL compliant jurat, when the notary should have used a CA compliant jurat.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/6/09 8:22am
Msg #298898

You're right Paul...

I realized after re-reading the original post that she was referring to another notary's cert - I initially understood her to be saying she got a package in from CA that had FL compliant language...that's what I was responding to. I didn't pick up on the fact that she was referring to a CA notary's certs.

Sorry Julie!!

Reply by Shoshana Roller on 8/5/09 8:43pm
Msg #298861

Just because CA has strict rules for verbiage....

doesn't mean the title companies there always follow the rules. Many times I had to attach CA compliant acks and jurats because the title co. was all wrong.

Reply by jba/fl on 8/5/09 8:56pm
Msg #298864

split signing, I was second notary n/m

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 8/5/09 10:00pm
Msg #298870

Re: split signing, I was second notary

You are correct in noticing, that they (the CA notary) did not do it correctly, because all Jurats needs to be CA compliant, which the wording you described is not.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 8/6/09 1:39pm
Msg #298974

Re: split signing, I was second notary

I have also been the 2nd notary on a split signing where the 1st notary did not perform their part correctly. Surprisingly (to me, anyway), there have been more issues with attorneys than with "just a notary."

My preference is to be the 1st notary in split signings.

Reply by jba/fl on 8/6/09 1:43pm
Msg #298979

I alsp prefer to be first n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 8/5/09 10:54pm
Msg #298872

That notary was wrong... plain and simple...

Jurats must be done in a specific format, no matter where the documents go. The notary should have known this, and if it were me (as a CA notary), I would have called them on it. That's me, though. The notary can (and should) be held liable for failing to execute their duties properly. Something like that could mean a hefty fine and suspension/loss of commission. It's nothing to mess with.

Acknowledgments CAN be alternative wording *if* the documents are required wording for that location, meant to be used/recorded in another state and the wording does not require the notary to certify capacity or any other thing forbidden by CA law. Most of us just use the CA wording to cover our backsides because it is compliant with CA law, and we don't have to sit and question if a cert contains information we can't attest to or not. It's just easier to use CA cert.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/5/09 11:43pm
Msg #298877

Re: That notary was wrong... plain and simple...

<<<Most of us just use the CA wording to cover our backsides because it is compliant with CA law, and we don't have to sit and question if a cert contains information we can't attest to or not. It's just easier to use CA cert.>>>

Absolutely agree!

Reply by jba/fl on 8/6/09 12:34am
Msg #298878

Sheila, Marian, LKT: That was the whole point -

After all that I have read and learned here from my wonderful NotRot family, I recognized the incorrectness of the notary's work. And with the amount of time that law has been in effect I was surprised.

I did my part correctly, now the ball is in another court (no pun intended).

Reply by MW/VA on 8/6/09 11:10am
Msg #298933

Re: That notary was wrong... plain and simple...

OT, glad you're back, Marian.