Posted by Roger_OH on 5/6/09 8:59am
Msg #287412

Blank spaces on a QCD - please weigh in...

I notarized a Quit Claim Deed signature, but the doc did not have the spaces filled in with the County Recorder information - volume/book number, page and recording date, so I lined thru them. Title returned the doc to me, saying it had to be re-signed.

My position was that the signer is acknowledging that the document contents are correct, and he can't do so if it is incomplete with blank spaces. They said they just add the numbers later, and my response was that that action alters the document, and defeats the purpose of the notarization. Someone with a fraudulent intent could put in any numbers they want, or they could be erroneous.

My feeling is that notarizing with blank spaces falls below any standard of acceptable notary practice, and exposes the notary to potential liability; I'm certain most of your state handbooks mention that. Is it actually illegal anywhere, though, to notarize with blank spaces?

But in your specific experiences with QCDs, is leaving those spaces blank before signing a common practice among title companies regarding the recording information for THIS particular document? Can't title fill in the past recording information before sending the QCD?

Thanks everyone!

Reply by MistarellaFL on 5/6/09 9:13am
Msg #287415

Maybe I am wrong, but ahead of time how do you expect they will know the volume/book number, page and recording date?
I don't have any issues with notarizing signatures on a deed without that information.
In this regard, what I am concerned about is that the CONTENT of the document is not lacking.
No blank spaces on the sworn/ack statement.

Reply by GA/Atty on 5/6/09 9:19am
Msg #287416

If the signer signs it, and you have verified his identity,

you should notarize it.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 5/6/09 9:22am
Msg #287417

Actually, it's not illegal in MI ...

The whole issue of blank spaces within the actual document is a non-issue here, and IMO rightfully so.

Those states that prohibit a notary from notarizing a signature on a document that contains blank spaces within the DOCUMENT are, IMO and in the opinion of a lot of people (*) by consequence requiring the notary public to make a determination based upon reviewing a document, and that (*) may be tipping toes on the UPL line.

(*)I am on a list-serve for the Secty's of State/NPA and this was a recent conversation among them, with the unanimous opinion as stated above. Since these people are the 'powers-that-be' within participating states, I imagine eventually the statutes pertaining to this will be revised, as MI did some time ago.

Reply by MW/VA on 5/6/09 9:28am
Msg #287420

Re: Actually, it's not illegal in MI ...

Thanks for this, Renee. Where do notaries get the idea they have any business or authority to interpret or alter a document? OMG, to line through the area reserved for the County Recorder information--are you serious?

Reply by Becca_FL on 5/6/09 9:41am
Msg #287422

It is illegal in FL

In Florida, a notary is prohibited from notarizing a document that is incomplete. Faced with Rogers situation, I would have done the same as Roger did. The fact is that title has the information to complete the deed, but they were too lazy to do their job and that is not my problem.

Reply by PAW on 5/6/09 10:04am
Msg #287431

It may or may not be illegal in FL

You are correct in that an incomplete document cannot be notarized, however, there are many conditions upon which blank spaces within a document do not constitute an incomplete document.

In this case, we are lacking some information as to what is actually missing. If it is the recording information from a PREVIOUSLY recorded document, then I would agree that the blank space would constitute an incomplete document. However, if the blank space is referring to the document that is TO BE RECORDED, then there is no way the information can be filled in until the document is actually recorded, thus the QCD may be considered complete sans recording information.

Just as a point of reference, Florida has no laws stipulating a document "containing blank spaces" cannot be notarized. I don't know of any state that has that stipulation. (Not saying there isn't one, just that I am not aware of it.) Many states, including Florida, do have statutes regarding incomplete or "blank documents" and notarizations. A "blank document" would be a "boilerplate" or "template" where important information is later completed. A "blank document" would constitute an incomplete document. However, complete documents may contain "blank spaces." Whether or not any blank space would make a document incomplete, is a decision that must be made by the document custodian, originator or recipient. The decision whether to notarize a document with blank spaces is up to the notary. The notary must decide if document is complete or incomplete with the blank spaces.

Reply by dickb/wi on 5/6/09 12:54pm
Msg #287477

i don't think title would have that info.....

because it is not available untill the [recorder][ register of deeds] or what ever they are called in your area, have duly recorded it in the county.....thay are the ones who assign the number and pages where it is located......in wi we are not supposed to notarize signatures on a doc with blank lines either and i strike the blanks so nothing can be inserted, however dees and quit claim dees are an exception as the countyu has to issue that info and in fact it is the register of dees who inserts it on the document......never the title co or any one else....my .02

Reply by dickb/wi on 5/6/09 12:56pm
Msg #287478

sorry for misspells.....fingers not working with brain..... n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/6/09 8:57pm
Msg #287587

Re: i don't think title would have that info.....

Yes they would - it would be contained in the title search, which SHOULD have been done since they're preparing a deed of conveyance - the blanks are referring to the original vesting into the owners.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 5/6/09 10:04am
Msg #287430

I'm With Renee...

...& her thoughts on this. The State of MO has no prohibition on notarizing with blank spaces in a document. We're encouraged to advise the signer there are blank spaces in the document if they exist, but nothing more.

Reply by SharonMN on 5/6/09 9:42am
Msg #287423

I would have a problem if the property address or the grantee was left blank to fill in later, but I wouldn't worry about the county recorder information.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/6/09 9:50am
Msg #287425

I'm confused...normal state of affairs these days for me

This county recorder information that's blank - was it in the BODY of the document or in the margin? Normally, IME, recorded docs have the recording info (book, page, date, etc) in the MARGIN of the doc, not the body of it. If this part you're referring to was in the BODY of the document referring to a previously recorded doc, then in FL we'd have to get it completed or not notarize (I wouldn't line through on my own and alter the doc - that's up to the preparer or the signers)....however, if the missing wording was in the MARGIN (and I don't see that because the recorders usually stamp that themselves) then that's not your concern as it's not a part of the doc (within the body) and should have been left alone. Notarizing is ok.

MHO

Reply by MistarellaFL on 5/6/09 9:55am
Msg #287427

Ditto Linda.

If within the "body" of the statement/doc, yes, I realize wording must be added, however, like you, I usually see the recording info outside the body of the doc.

Reply by Roger_OH on 5/6/09 10:19am
Msg #287436

It is indeed in the body of the doc...

Reads thusly:

QUIT CLAIM DEED

John Doe and Mary Doe, formerly known as Mary Smith, husband & wife, who acquired title as married individuals, for their joint lives, remainder to the survivor of them.

WHO CLAIM TITLE by or through instrument, recorded _______ in Volume/Book_________,
Page________, Franklin County Recorder's office.

For the consideration of $1.00

Then another half page of easement stuff, etc before the sig lines and the ack.


My concern echoed Becca, that it wasn't in the margin, but WAS part of the doc.

Every notary manual I've ever seen (including the The Signing Registry Guide and my state handbook)) cautions against notarizing on documents that are blank or incomplete, so I'm curious as to how those who mentioned not being concerned about it guard against something being added later to a blank space on a document. How could you prove it wasn't already there when you notarized the signature?

Reply by Roger_OH on 5/6/09 10:24am
Msg #287438

and IS for a previous recording... n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/6/09 10:25am
Msg #287439

Thanks Roger...

That info, as you printed, indicates TO ME that they're referring to the previously recorded document in which the owners originally took title. IMO this info SHOULD be filled in and without this info the document IS incomplete ,.,. however, that being said, it also is not your responsbility to cross this info out - you altered the document.

MHO

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 5/6/09 10:31am
Msg #287440

I can see where you are coming from , Rog, and the

law is the law, yada yada, but in the deed you are referring to,
I fail to see how the intent of the doc, could be altered when the TC
fills in the info. It seems to be referring to the deed which conveyed to
PIQ to them, and they are just getting it into her married name.
What is the danger??
This is the somewhat like to "exhibit A" debates that we have had here over
the years, where the deed/mortgage includes the address, parcel # etc. so
as to specify what property in intended to be conveyed.
We OF COURSE should not be engaging in UPL, but I believe that a
certain "reasonableness" standard is appropriate. Have to consider, what
is the potential harm?
I don't think that the Ohio SOS would have been at all upset with you if
you had notarized this doc.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/6/09 10:37am
Msg #287441

Bob, corrrect me if I'm wrong...but

there may have been no problem with him notarizing, but was he authorized to alter the doc by crossing out that section? I think title is right asking him to go back out - and on his dime.

JMHO

Reply by Roger_OH on 5/6/09 10:45am
Msg #287447

Hi Linda...

The TSR Guide (and other manuals) state that the signer (OK, not me) should line thru or write n/a on any blank spaces so that nothing can be added later. That's why I did so.

So in this specific case of a QCD, IS there any potential for fraudulent acts by leaving blank spaces? As Bob noted, what is the danger?

Reply by Becca_FL on 5/6/09 11:09am
Msg #287452

I'm with you, Roger.

The fact of the matter is if title had done their job PROPERLY and sent you a completed deed none of this would have happened. I do just as you do and the TSR recommends. Lazy EOs are to blame.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/09 3:00pm
Msg #287502

But TSR only recommends doing that for...

...spaces that are intended to be left blank or don't apply. It's in section 4, on the first page. It says, "If they are to be filled in later, you are urged to decline notarizing that document."

Am I reading that wrong?

Reply by Becca_FL on 5/6/09 11:12am
Msg #287454

And...

Title could have easily "fixed" this with a little dry line and a typewriter. I am amazed at some of the momos posing as EOs these days.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 5/6/09 11:03am
Msg #287451

Linda, I would never knock my buddy, Roger. Besides,

he has enough to worry about with Zambrano's pulled hammy, and
the Cubbies dismal post season record.

Reply by PAW on 5/6/09 10:06am
Msg #287432

Re: I'm confused...normal state of affairs these days for me

Exactly!

Reply by davidK/CA on 5/6/09 10:41am
Msg #287442

CA has specific language regarding "Incomplete Documents"

CA 2009 Notary Manual, Page 16:

Notarization of Incomplete Documents
A notary public may not notarize a document that is incomplete. If presented with a document
for notarization, which the notary public knows from his or her experience to be incomplete or
is without doubt on its face incomplete, the notary public must refuse to notarize the document. (Government Code section 8205)

IMHO, this is typical of legal language that it open to interpretation by the Notary that would not be considered to be UPL. In really it just puts the burden onto the Notary to determine what is OK and what is not OK. You take your best shot and hope there are no problems down the road. Clearly we shouldn't be fixing obvious errors of non-completion by the title company, and we as Notaries should not make changes to the body of any document (except for the dates on the RTC).

Reply by Gary_CA on 5/6/09 10:44am
Msg #287446

Roger, what are you thinking? n/m

Reply by Gary_CA on 5/6/09 10:49am
Msg #287448

Nevermind

First of all I hit enter oops... then I read your clarification.

At first read it looked like you objected to not having the information from the recording of the deed you were notarizing...which of course is impossible.

But your clarification clarifies... that's part of the deed and needs to be filled in before notarization. Without it that deed is incomplete. (In CA I couldn't notarize it and they could like it or lump it.)

I've never seen a deed here that referenced the deed in which the grantors took the property, but if it did that would have to be complete.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 5/6/09 11:14am
Msg #287455

You Do Realize, Gary, the Barn Door...

...is now wide open to discuss our fav topic with Bob_Chicago bringing up the Cubbies woes. First of all congratulations are in order for the Dodgers (henceforth I'll reserve the word "Codgers" only for when they're playing the Cards) as the team with the best record in baseball. Bezbol's been berry berry good to you lately, Gary. 12-0 at home? Wow! Something tells me that won't last forever. The Cards have got to get over their injury bug again. Did you see Ankiel's header into the centerfield wall? We're fortunate he's only going to be out a couple of days.

Reply by Gary_CA on 5/6/09 4:53pm
Msg #287544

I ain't sayin' a word

I'm being a good boy. A very good boy.

When (if) my Dodgers end this winning streak I'll probably be in a mood to go back to naughty.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/09 11:19am
Msg #287456

That's easy...

If the document isn't complete, meaning there are blank spaces in the body that clearly need to be filled out... then I won't even consider notarizing it. Nor should any other notary... but especially in California.

It's on page 16 of the CA notary handbook, and it is part of California Government Code 8205(2):

"A notary public may not accept any acknowledgment or proof of any instrument that is incomplete."

No insistence from anyone is going to make me risk my commission and open myself up to fines from the State and all kinds of crazy liability issues.

I wouldn't even cross out blank spaces... I simply wouldn't do it until it was properly filled out. How difficult is it to find the that information on a property anyway? It's public information, and many counties these days have that information available online if you know what you're looking for. County tax offices are usually the first place to go. It is especially ridiculous if the doc came from a Title company. If they are prepping paperwork and don't have that information readily available, I'd run. Fast.

Now, we do often have to fill in RTC dates... but that isn't a document we notarize, so the notary rules don't apply.

Yes, it is annoying to the consumer to have you say, "I can't notarize this because it's not filled out all the way..." They don't always understand. In this particular situation, I'd happily direct them to a computer and tell them how to look it up....or have them call the TC and get that information.

But really... shouldn't a borrower also have that information in their paperwork somewhere anyway?

To test this out, I just pulled up the LA County Tax Assessor's website and looked up the parcel data on my neighbor's house. Within 2 minutes, I have the APN# and last recording date. The website indicate that the APN number is a combination of the map/page numbers... and all I'd really need to do is call the Recorder's office to verify it. Done. Not that I would do it FOR anyone as a notary in this situation, I'm just describing how easy it is to get that information.

Reply by Roger_OH on 5/6/09 11:44am
Msg #287458

Appreciate everyone's input - still need an answer to...

the question of: On the specific QCD document, is there risk of something fraudulent occurring
if the recording spaces are left blank? What danger is there?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/09 11:53am
Msg #287460

Re: Appreciate everyone's input - still need an answer to...

Within the body?

Sure... somebody could put the wrong information in there and try to pass it off as a legit QCD.

Remember that story about the reporter who "stole" the Empire State Building?

http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2008/12/02/2008-12-02_it_took_90_minutes_for_daily_news_to_ste.html

A good crook will find a way...

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 5/6/09 12:28pm
Msg #287470

None, IMO. Unless someone has a far more devious mind

than mine.
The blank refers to the recorded doc through which they acquired title
to the proerty. As Gary, said, no clue why this is necessary.
So long as the property and grantee are adequately described in the
deed, I fail to see how anyone could fraudulently fill in the blanks for monetary gain.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/6/09 12:47pm
Msg #287476

Re: None, IMO. Unless someone has a far more devious mind

Yep. I agree, Bob. Hard to swindle someone if there's a property description. It just makes the document wrong. But I hear what Roger's saying.

To Roger: I think the practice you have described is not that uncommon. I hate these kinds of situations...time wasters on your part, for sure.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/6/09 2:53pm
Msg #287499

Re: None, IMO. Unless someone has a far more devious mind

I actually agree in theory with you guys...in this particular situation it would be difficult.

But... from a position as a notary... it's still an incomplete document.

It's an interesting ethical question. For many of us, notarizing that document...even though it's clear there will likely be no issues with it... is still a violation of state law. (At least where it is law...of course.)

Reply by Pat/IL on 5/6/09 4:58pm
Msg #287547

None.

I don't think it leaves an opportunity for fraud, and I don't think it defeats the purpose of the notarization. I'm not sure how things work in Ohio. But, in other states, I have seen deeds such as the one you describe, which describe the property only by reference to prior deeds. As for defeating the purpose of the notarization, I believe the purpose of the notarization is identifying the signer.

If you are returning the documents to the title company, and the title company is insuring the transaction, why would the title company insert anything but the prior deed information.

I don't know if it would matter either way in Ohio if there was also a full legal description attached. All I have seen backing up the argument in favor of the crossout is the California manual. Nice to know, but Roger is in Ohio.

Listen to Bob_Chicago. He is pretty smart for a Sox fan.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/6/09 5:03pm
Msg #287550

Re: None.

*If you are returning the documents to the title company, and the title company is insuring the transaction, why would the title company insert anything but the prior deed information. *

You have or do work "inside" the industry, right Pat?

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/6/09 5:04pm
Msg #287552

oops...

I meant that you know about "stuff"...the other remark sounded odd once I read it.

Reply by Pat/IL on 5/6/09 5:24pm
Msg #287557

Right, Brenda.

That's really all I have to contribute here. My experience in the title industry. I am not really much of a notary. I am from Illinois where a notary has about the same responsibility as a bouncer outside of a bar. Except the bouncer has more authority.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/6/09 6:36pm
Msg #287566

Re: Right, Brenda.

And you're pretty darn hilarious too. I do appreciate what you have to say because you are from the dark side now, like I am...like Becca's going to be.

Reply by Pat/IL on 5/6/09 6:57pm
Msg #287570

Re: Thanks Brenda.

I appreciate what you have to say also. I hope you are enjoying the dark side. I have been here for 20 years now, so the darkness doesn't really bother me. And to Becca, Welcome to the dark side, nyaaaa haaa haaaa haaaa haaa!

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/6/09 5:25pm
Msg #287559

Re: None.

"As for defeating the purpose of the notarization, I believe the purpose of the notarization is identifying the signer."

True, but I don't think that tells the whole story. The purpose of the notarization, imho, is to certify that a specific individual (ID'd by us) did in fact sign THIS document, exactly as it is when they appeared before us, on a given date. If it is changed after the fact, then it isn't the same document that we notarized for them.

This is also a pet peeve of mine, as well. In a perfect world, this info would all be filled in or the document would be designed so that info that won't be available until later, is not in the body of the document, but clearly set off in a section marked "for office use only" or "For County Recorder" or whatever would be appropriate.

Reply by Pat/IL on 5/6/09 6:54pm
Msg #287569

Dammit Janet

I suppose you are right, and I am no proponent,generally, of leaving blanks on documents of any kind. But in Roger's case, those blanks are innocuous because of the language surrounding the spaces. Furthermore, I think it could be argued that the limited powers of attorney the borrowers are always asked to sign would cover the addition of this information by the escrow officer.

About the Dasmmit Janet thing: I am not trying to be mean or to offend. It's just that I've been looking for an opportunity to say that ever since I saw the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/7/09 1:57am
Msg #287630

No worries... I got it - & heard it before, a few times ;-) n/m

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/6/09 10:46pm
Msg #287611

Re: None.

"The purpose of the notarization, imho, is to certify that a specific individual (ID'd by us) did in fact sign THIS document, exactly as it is when they appeared before us, on a given date. If it is changed after the fact, then it isn't the same document that we notarized for them."

All well and good - but what is there to stop anyone from changing ANY document after you've completed the notarization and the document has left your hands?

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/7/09 2:08am
Msg #287631

Re: None.

Naturally, we can't guarantee anything. But I'm from one of the states that flat out prohibits notarizing an incomplete document. And we can only do our best to try to make that difficult to do. I do work from time to time for an estate planning attorney, for example, who has every page of the clients' estate plan initialed. He uses special paper with a specific watermark and insists that everyone use certain pens that he provides so that everything is signed with the same ink. It doesn't mean that a determined person couldn't somehow manage to swap out a page, but it would be awfully difficult. And no strike-throughs with initials are allowed - mistakes are fixed with new initials from the client(s). So if one of his documents ever ends up in court, his consistency works to his favor.

We don't have control like he does, of course, with our loan packages, but many here have talked about little techniques we can use to discourage a document from being tampered with once it's been notarized. But if docs could that easily be changed after they've been signed and notarized, what's the point of notarizing them in the first place?

Reply by PAW on 5/7/09 7:34am
Msg #287647

Re: None.

I too work with estate planners. One in particular ensures that pages can't be changed out by impression sealing all the pages. When I notarize, I too am asked to impression seal each page. (Impression seals are not official notary seals in Florida.) Therefore, each page of a document will have two impression seals affixed at the bottom.

Likewise, each page must be pristine; no changes or stray marks. All signatures are witnessed by two witnesses (not the attorney nor notary) with witness affidavits.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 5/7/09 10:26am
Msg #287684

Re: None.

"But if docs could that easily be changed after they've been signed and notarized, what's the point of notarizing them in the first place?"

The point of notarizing in the first place is that you're notarizing a signature, not the content of the document - your notarization doesn't make the document "legal".

I'm not arguing that it doesn't matter. Obviously, if state law says you can't notarize if the document contains blanks then you can't do it. We don't have that restriction here, but unless it's something relatively minor (like the missing liber and page on the QCD), I would generally decline to notarize a document with blanks in it also. But I have no control over the document (or even my notarial block, for that matter) once it leaves my hands, and no illusions that it won't ever be modified by anyone after the fact.

Reply by MW/VA on 5/6/09 1:17pm
Msg #287482

Re: Appreciate everyone's input - still need an answer to...

You never said if you called the tc before lining through the blanks?

Reply by Gary_CA on 5/6/09 4:42pm
Msg #287538

Wrong question

I guess there's some danger that the thing could be filled in for a different property that the same owners own.

But it's not your job to look into a crystal ball... it's your job (at least in my State) not to notarize incomplete documents. With those blanks that deed is incomplete.

The damn TC can get that information, they're just lazy.

I'd be very apologetic and would offer to go resign for free (if it's not on the dark side of the moon) but only if they complete the deed first.

I don't know how much flexibility your laws allow, mine don't.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/6/09 2:57pm
Msg #287500

Unless I'm missing something, this looks like a catch-22:

Can't notarize with blanks, can't record (have blanks completed) without notarization.

I've always looked at a recordable doc as a series of steps: Get doc, ID signer, notarize signature (or take oath,) and return doc to requesting party.

As for filling in *past recording information*? What good would that do? Unsigned QCD isn't recordable. And the current QCD isn't recorded until it's signed, notarized, and presented for recordation (and a fee paid.)

Other posters have said as much in various ways, I think. Despite the 'leave no blanks' rule, it cannot apply to *future* events, imho.

Reply by Gary_CA on 5/6/09 4:47pm
Msg #287540

If you read Roger's clarification, there's no catch. n/m

Reply by Gary_CA on 5/6/09 4:51pm
Msg #287543

dang it, that's twice now...

It's not the info on the top that we're all used to that's blank.

This deed (unlike any deed I've ever seen) has the page# and whatever of the previous deed by which they obtained the property IN THE BODY OF THE DEED... like part of the property description. Read Rogers post kinda in the middle of the pile and you'll understand.

There's no reason that can't be filled in before the grantor signs. But they didn't. This is OLD not future information.