Posted by slknotary on 1/16/09 10:44am
Msg #274666

Strange reason to have to re-sign a document

I did the original basic document notarization on December 11th. The form was declined because my signature has my middle initial but my stamp has my full middle name. I was called yesterday to sign with my full middle name. I was fine with that. I never had a problem like this before, but I was more than happy to comply.

Here's the strange part: the person who rejected the form insisted that I use the 2009 Acknowledgment form. It made me pause for a moment because I didn't realize new forms came out. The 2009 Acknowledgment form was attached and it had the exact same wording at the form I originally used. I tried to explain that the form I used was the same, but the lady wouldn't listen to me. I put them side by side to show her the wording, but she said her boss wanted the 2009 Acknowledgment form used.

Don't even get me started on the argument I had with her to explain why I couldn't back date to December 11th.

Reply by MW/VA on 1/16/09 10:57am
Msg #274670

Maybe you've been lucky to this point. As far as I know, you have to sign exactly as it is on your commission.

Reply by Barb25 on 1/16/09 11:10am
Msg #274675

Same in Florida as I have had reason to learn due to necessity of name change. You have flexibility as to the name on commission but whatever you decide on is how you must sign.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/16/09 11:05am
Msg #274673

CA state law requires you to sign exactly as your commission states. It says so right on the application you filled out. So yes... they had every right to reject the notarization. In fact at the very bottom, it says, "This signature must be used by you for all official notarial acts."

Application link: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary_app.pdf


Just because nobody has complained about it before doesn't mean you were always doing it "right".

And the acknowledgment wording hasn't changed for CA from 2008 to 2009, so why would you need a different form? Why do they even differentiate between the two years?

Reply by slknotary on 1/16/09 11:24am
Msg #274678

Thanks for the head's up Marion. Now I feel like really bad for doing it wrong. Lesson learned.

As far as the difference in forms, I am still confused on that one. There is no difference.

Reply by slknotary on 1/16/09 11:26am
Msg #274679

I meant to add that my official signature is the one with only the initial.

Reply by CaliNotary on 1/16/09 11:39am
Msg #274684

"I meant to add that my official signature is the one with only the initial. "

You should have declined the request then. How the lender wants the notarization block completed is irrelevant, that is completely within our control and they have no say in the matter.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 1/16/09 11:35am
Msg #274682

Am I missing something? If the doc was originally signed

before you on Dec 11, why could you not complete a new ack for that date with your complete signature? Isn't 'back dating' completing a certificate using a prior date, but actually signed before the notary on the present date?

Were you asked to change the date on the correctly signed cert to a date after Dec 11?

Reply by slknotary on 1/16/09 11:39am
Msg #274685

Re: Am I missing something? If the doc was originally signed

No you are not missing anything. I'll see if I can explain. I would've been easier for me to just sign my signature. Since they didn't like the acknowledgment form I used, the signer had to sign their "2009" form yesterday, so I wanted to put yesterday's date. Does that make sense?

Maybe I was confused because that seemed to be back dating to me.

Reply by CaliNotary on 1/16/09 11:45am
Msg #274688

Re: Am I missing something? If the doc was originally signed

Now I'm confused. Were you just completing a different acknowledgment? Or did you have to get a new signature from the borrower as well? If it was just replacing the ack, you use the original date since that's the only date they appeared in front of you. Iif there was a new signature you use the current date.

It sounds like you need to learn how to take MUCH more control as a notary.

Reply by slknotary on 1/16/09 11:49am
Msg #274691

Re: Am I missing something? If the doc was originally signed

It was a brand new signature which is why I dated it for yesterday. It wasn't a borrower. I notarized a signature on a document. Since they wanted new forms, the person signed the new paperwork. It does seem confusing and I apologize for that.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 1/16/09 11:53am
Msg #274694

Ah ha! Now I see, said the blind woman... Why not just

attach a loose ack with proper signature? The 2009 form seems so - um - silly!

It's amazing -

Reply by A S Johnson on 1/16/09 1:26pm
Msg #274718

Why do you need to explain that you can NOT back date?
The simple answer is "you have asked me to commit a FELONY? I will not break the LAW!!!"

Reply by CaliNotary on 1/16/09 1:29pm
Msg #274720

I'm pretty sure backdating a notarization isn't a felony n/m

Reply by janCA on 1/16/09 1:46pm
Msg #274729

Re: I'm pretty sure backdating a notarization isn't a felony

It can be in CA if you are falsifying an acknowledgement and it is dealing with the transfer of property or a DOT. Also a fine of up to $10,000.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/20/09 1:05am
Msg #275105

Re: I'm pretty sure backdating a notarization isn't a felony

I would agree. Putting an incorrect date in an acknowledgement seems to me to fit the definition of perjury, a felony, not only with the potential of the fine you mentioned, but risk of jail time.

Reply by Philip Johnson on 1/16/09 2:23pm
Msg #274745

Speaks volumes for having an illegible signature.

Mine is so poor that one can deduce it to be whatever one wants it to be. May I suggest you roughen up your signature, so you can claim it to be whatever you say it is.

Reply by davidK/CA on 1/16/09 7:06pm
Msg #274799

CA rules may be silly but they are the law!!!

There iIS a 2009 CA All-Purpose Acknowledgement form. The new form removes "personal knowledge" as a method of identification. Period. If the acknowledgement by the signor was made in 2009 you have to exclusively and solely identify the signor by means of "satisfactory evidence". Even if it's your boyhood friend and neighbor for the last 60 years, the signor has to produce "satisfactory evidence" before the Notary Public can affix their seal and signature.

There is also a mandatory 2009 CA Jurat. The change in 2009 also removes "personal knowledge" and regardless of the state where the document will be filed, you MUST use the language specified in CA Law. There is no other option. Many states just have "subscribed before me" as the conditions which is insufficient language for any CA notary Public to use in lieu of the mandatory prescribed Jurat language.

While it is not necessary that the acknowledged document be signed in front of the Notary Public, the person making the Acknowledgement has to be present before the Notary Public in order to (re)Acknowledge the act itself. Although normally the Notary Public should use the current 2009 Acknowledgement form, if the preprinted language on the document is not CA standard language but does not state things such as "capacity (i.e. President or Secretary) or marital status (i.e.e Husband and Wife or A single Man) things which a CA notary Public may not certify to no matter where the state of filing will be, the the CA notary Public may execute the non-CA Acknowledgement.

A CA notary Public that does not follow these rules has failed to perform their official duties as required by law.

JMPO: This clearly incompetent Notary Public should ask the XYZ company for a refund of their pre-commission education class fee since XYZ obviously didn't teach them the law in CA. This uneducated Notary should then do everyone a favor and resign their Commission before they hurt themselves, and hurt others. We have enough NSAs in CA that the loss of those who don't know and/or don't follow the law won't be a loss any of us will notice.

Reply by CaliNotary on 1/16/09 7:18pm
Msg #274801

Re: CA rules may be silly but they are the law!!!

"There iIS a 2009 CA All-Purpose Acknowledgement form. The new form removes "personal knowledge" as a method of identification. Period. If the acknowledgement by the signor was made in 2009 you have to exclusively and solely identify the signor by means of "satisfactory evidence". Even if it's your boyhood friend and neighbor for the last 60 years, the signor has to produce "satisfactory evidence" before the Notary Public can affix their seal and signature.

There is also a mandatory 2009 CA Jurat. The change in 2009 also removes "personal knowledge" and regardless of the state where the document will be filed, you MUST use the language specified in CA Law. There is no other option. Many states just have "subscribed before me" as the conditions which is insufficient language for any CA notary Public to use in lieu of the mandatory prescribed Jurat language."

These went into effect in 2008, not this year.

Reply by Dave_CA on 1/17/09 10:26am
Msg #274834

CaliNotary is right +

the change in 2008 also added "I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct."
And perjury can be a felony...