Posted by Marian_in_CA on 1/21/09 5:11pm
Msg #275238
Bit of irony...
So I was presented with a Notary oath of Office form today that came directly from the CA SOS, and while I didn't notice it before, the jurat wording on the form (to be used if the notary is mailing in their bond and oath) is not CA compliant jurat wording. We both got a giggle out of that one.
The form only says, "Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this _____ day of _____________________, 20_____, by __________________________ ."
It should read, "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."
| Reply by John_NorCal on 1/21/09 5:19pm
Msg #275240
It figures! Who's watching the henhouse? n/m
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/21/09 6:37pm
Msg #275244
Re: It figures! Who's watching the henhouse?
So, this bugged me and I call the SOS's office and after being transferred twice, spoke to a supervisor who was very nice, and he said they were told that their legal staff told them *and* all of the county clerk's offices that the wording on the oath of office form is NOT a jurat, even though the wording is exactly the same. He said it was "just an oath of office", not a true notarial act. (yeah... I had that 'huh?' expression, too)
So, page 12 of the handbook says that, "The jurat is identified by the wording “Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed)” contained in the form... A jurat cannot be affixed to a document mailed or otherwise delivered to a notary public whereby the signer did not personally appear, take an oath, and sign in the presence of the notary public, even if the signer is known by the notary public. Also, a notary public seal and signature cannot be affixed to a document without the correct notarial wording."
So, even though the wording is the same... and by all reasonable forms of reading comprehension this is, in fact, a jurat... it isn't? Also, the oath of office form requires us to use our seal... which we can only affix to a document with "correct notarial wording." So if it isn't a "real" notarial act, then why require our seal?
But he insisted that the wording on the oath of office form was correct and fine and that all of the county clerks will accept it. So, I said, "Then is is a problem if I used actual jurat wording instead?"
He said, "Oh yeah, that's fine, too."
Ugh. My head hurts.
I dunno, I'd rather play it safe and go by what the handbook says as it is written now. That's my only form of legal backup should there ever be a problem, and if I'm given a form that requires my seal and says, "Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed)..." then I'm going to make darn sure my certificate/wording is correct.
| Reply by Maureen_nh on 1/21/09 11:12pm
Msg #275267
Re: It figures! Who's watching the henhouse?
Don't feel picked on. We have almost every government agency sending out incorrect notarial certificates to the public and when you call the SOS they say just put on an attachment.
Dumb, why doesn't the SOS just give them a jingle and say your paperwork is incorect ot just stop making these people jump through hoops to get this stuff notatized when it is really not necessary.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/21/09 11:45pm
Msg #275268
Re: It figures! Who's watching the henhouse?
Other agencies make sense... but these forms come directly from the SOS's office in the package with a notary's commission. That's why it's so funny to me. I kind of get the feeling that the people in the office there don't have a lot of actual experience as notaries.
The gentleman that I spoke to did say, though, that I wasn't the first person to call about that. Well, I would hope not! He said the wording I added would bee accepted by the clerk... so I don't understand why the SOS doesn't just add it and save everyone the headache.
When I filed my new oath/bond last month I never even noticed it because I went straight to the clerk instead.
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 1/22/09 12:07am
Msg #275269
Re: It figures! Who's watching the henhouse?
So if it isn't a "real" notarial act, then why require our seal? What a great question.
Oregon's Handbook, for instance, says, "A valid notarization must have an official notary seal, an official notarial signature, and a complete notarial certificate." It also says, "So long as nothing in the certificate is false, and the necessary information is included, the notary may complete the certificate." And finally, it says, "A notary shall not use the notary public's official seal for any other purpose than to perform a notarial act." I'm still looking for a statement requiring a certification for *every* oath taken by a notary public.
I'm with you, Marian. Huh? An oath is an oath. Some officer of the state has to administer the oath, (the 'oathee'  ,) and someone else has to give that oath, (the 'oathor' ) As a matter of fact, Calvin Coolege's father, a notary public, swore Cal in as president following the death of Warren G Harding. I'd love to know if there was a certificate.
And too, not every oath given and taken, is notarized, as in court; the administering officer of the court takes oaths of witnesses every day all over the country. They're not notarial acts. No certs there, either.
So, notaries public are bestowed with the power by their commissions as oficers of their respective states to take oaths, but there are no laws that require/dont' an attendant certificate documenting that oath?
Is the question, then, does an oath taken by a notary public require a subsequent certificated notarial act?
And if so, wouldn't the certificate contain the exact words of the oath, plus the answer, wouldn't that be the wording? In effect, a transcript of the verbal exchange? With perhaps additional qualifying language that said something like, "Sworn or affirmed before me the following: (...text of transcript), on this date in this jurisdiction, by (name of 'oathor,' identifed by me according to law, yada yada.
The bottom line of a jurat, as I see it, is a signer affirms under Oath the truth of a written statement as presented. An oath of office, or an oath in Court, or other prodeedings, is a public, audible, giving and taking of an Oath, as verbally presented. Two things.
My head hurts too. Thank goodness for wine.
Cheers!
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/22/09 12:54am
Msg #275270
Re: It figures! Who's watching the henhouse?
Susan, you're totally right... I think. I need a Tylenol.
This form is odd. It has the wording of the notary's oath of office, and is then signed by the notary taking the oath. In essence, what I did today (just to cover myself) is we did two oaths. First we did her oath of office, which she then signed. Easy enough.
It then had the "subscribed and sworn" wording, and venue underneath for the notary to sign and seal. Because it asked for the seal, it was clearly a jurat. Then I did the standard jurat oath. SO, really... we did two oaths, and had a good laugh about it when it was over. She agreed that she would have done it the same way I did - and she's been a notary for almost 16 years.
If the form had only asked for my signature, and perhaps my commission number so they could verify my signature, then obviously no jurat -- just a non-notarial oath. But since the form was clearly asking for my seal, that's what made the difference to me because our handbook is really clear about that kind of thing.
IN the end, the guy said it would be fine and agreed that it is confusing. To me, it's not so confusing as it is poor form design on their part. If they want the seal, they should fix the wording to be compliant. But if they want the wording to remain, they should drop the requirement for the seal.
At any rate... this is why I took it mine to the clerk instead. The process of filing an oath and bond by mail is a real nightmare compared to waiting in line at the clerk's office.
| Reply by Susan Fischer on 1/22/09 2:14am
Msg #275272
Holey Moley, Marian - I too dread odd forms. Especially
those composed by non-understanders. (Those darned secretaries...  )
Marian, your deep questions on this topic are so interesting. Thanks for posting.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/22/09 2:53am
Msg #275276
Re: It figures! Who's watching the henhouse?
I did one of those for someone not too long ago, too, so I know what you mean. I'm guessing the whole thing is a budget issue. They probably have a stockpile of the forms as sent out, and don't have any funds to reprint them. [Who are we kidding... the State of California doesn't have any funds, period!] I treated it like I have several other state-issued forms (like requests for vital records) that appear to have jurat wording, but not the current version. I just used my jurat stamp (or attached a loose certificate - don't remember which one), and fixed it. Also, as I recall, when I filed my last commission with the county clerk, I'm pretty sure they only administered one oath. I don't believe the law doesn't requires specific wording for jurats, so we just used the oath wording provided on the form itself.
I haven't heard of any issues, so I imagine they didn't have a problem with it. I totally agree about taking it in person. I've never had to wait very long and I knew for certain that it was handled.
|
|
