Posted by Robert/FL on 4/16/10 5:41pm
Msg #332037

Talk about "certifying capacity"...

Look at this one:

STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 12th day of April, 2010, before me personally appeared JANE DOE, personally known to me to be the person describd in and who executed the foregoing conveyance to JANE DOE, an unremarried widow, for a life estate, without any liability for waste, and with full power and authority in said life tenant to sell, convey, mortgage, lease or otherwise manage and dispose of the property desciribed herein, in fee simple, with or without consideration, without joinder of the remainderman, and with full power and authority to retain any and all proceeds generated thereby, and upon the death of the life tenant, the remainder, if any, to JOHN DOE, and severally acknowledged the execution thereto to be her free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.



I swear, these title companies have absolutely no clue.

Reply by John/CT on 4/16/10 5:48pm
Msg #332038

All that in one sentence! Needs real-life translation. n/m

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 4/17/10 6:04am
Msg #332099

I'm out of breath just silently reading it as written. LOL n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/16/10 5:48pm
Msg #332039

I have to LOL on this one.

Even for Texas which does allow for certain things about marital status, and officer/authority capacity with an entity or partnership to be stated in the certificate, this one is a stretch.

Where did you come up with this one, Robert?

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/16/10 5:58pm
Msg #332041

This was in a QCD that came across my desk today

Just the acknowledgment certificate alone seems to sum up the whole transaction LOL

Reply by jba/fl on 4/16/10 6:50pm
Msg #332048

Re: This was in a QCD that came across my desk today

That was my initial thought too: why didn't the QCD have this language? Perhaps it did, but why restate in the ack?

This is another reason I like the short and sweet versions that the state shows to be sufficient. One doesn't have to scratch one's head while trying to decide if that is what one should be stamping/signing.

Reply by MW/VA on 4/16/10 6:20pm
Msg #332043

Wow. To think it is attorneys who write these & they should know better. A very important reminder that we know our Notary laws, and what we can or cannot do. I've been having a hard time lately with the forms in loan packages that ask me to certify the identification presented to me. What???? IMO, it seems that word "certify" is used too generally in many cases.
BTW, Robert, you didn't say how you handled it.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/16/10 6:22pm
Msg #332044

It was already notarized when I came across it n/m

Reply by Cari on 4/18/10 3:09pm
Msg #332257

so how exactly did this come across your desk?? n/m

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/16/10 6:31pm
Msg #332045

Re: Talk about "certifying capacity"... n/m

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/16/10 6:32pm
Msg #332046

could you tell us what's wrong with it?

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/16/10 6:36pm
Msg #332047

Are you serious? n/m

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/16/10 8:42pm
Msg #332059

Re: Are you serious?

As serious as a 30 sec heart attack! Not what I think is wrong, what you think is wrong. Explanation please not individual dissemination. Your brought it up. Thanks in advance.

Reply by Pat/IL on 4/16/10 8:46pm
Msg #332062

Re: Are you serious?

I'm with Notarysigner. I'd like t see an explanation.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/16/10 8:49pm
Msg #332063

The whole thing is wrong...

The notary is basically certifying the transaction. The fact that the grantee is an unremarried widow retaining a life estate blah blah is not the notary's concern, and for the notary to certify this information under his hand and seal means that the notary would have had to read and interpret the document. That's UPL.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/16/10 9:08pm
Msg #332066

Re: The whole thing is wrong...

Thank you Robert for your explanation. Now, it was notarized right? Was it legal? And finally did you read it? Couldn't we have just used the clique, notarize, don't analysis? I really understand that you're a very intelligent young man but is this ( you discoveries) job related? If they are, we are very blessed to have you.

I had a borrower who approved contracts for the DOD who read the entire deed (16 pages) in 3 minutes. She read at the rate of 800 wpm she later told me and she also found 4 misspelled words to boot. Finding errors was her job.

Just curious that's all, thanks again for you answer.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/16/10 9:11pm
Msg #332067

Re: The whole thing is wrong...

I don't understand what you are asking... I am not a document examiner, but I do have all sorts of documents coming across my desk, many of which are notarized. I frequently handle wills, probate docs, family law docs, and occasionally real estate docs. This document was notarized; I was reviewing it for the legal description but noticed the absurd notary certificate and wanted to share it.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/16/10 9:17pm
Msg #332068

Re: Got it, Okay..thanks again...

..............I rarely read the Docs as here in California there must be specific wording. So I have my own acknowledgments and Jurats which conforms to state requirements. I just fill in the Names and dates and sign and stamp.

Reply by bagger on 4/16/10 7:08pm
Msg #332049

I did a signing last night with 12, count em 12, right to cancels!
Husband and wife.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/16/10 7:31pm
Msg #332050

There was one company I worked with when I used to do signings that always had about 12 RTC's in package - and they wanted then all signed!!! Ridiculous.

Reply by BEEJ on 4/16/10 7:52pm
Msg #332052

Just out of curiosity . . .

How can someone be a "life tenant" and a "remainderman?" Is this really a possibility for capacity?

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 4/16/10 8:02pm
Msg #332056

Re: Just out of curiosity . . .

Doesn't say that. Says the life tenant basically doesn't have to involve the remainderman if she wants to dispose of the assets.

Tendencies toward this sort of legalese could be cured in a heartbeat if lawyers who engage in it were required to diagram the sentence, a la Ms. Greene in 10th grade Language Arts. They would discover very quickly what the term "plain English" means.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/16/10 8:44pm
Msg #332060

Re: Exactly just out of curiosity . . . n/m

Reply by Pat/IL on 4/16/10 8:44pm
Msg #332061

Re: Just out of curiosity . . .

Why don't we pretend we're in Ms. Grene's class and parse the acknowledgement. Just for fun. Notorysigner asked what's wrong with it and was dismissed pretty quickly. Aside from an unnecessary recitation of the deed's habendum clause, I don't know that there is anything improper about the acknowledgement.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the world's best notary. I am, after all, from Illinois - where we pretty much pay our eight bucks and get a stamp. I realize that in some states, such as California, all of the wording has to be just so. I don't know that Florida is that rigid.

So, let's take a look at this anyway.

"I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 12th day of April, 2010, before me personally appeared JANE DOE, personally known to me to be the person describd (sic) in and who executed the foregoing conveyance..." The only thing the notary is attesting to is that Jane Doe appeared before him/her on the April 12, 2010, and that it was the same Jane Doe who executed the document for which her signature is being notarized.

"...to JANE DOE, an unremarried widow, for a life estate, without any liability for waste, and with full power and authority in said life tenant to sell, convey, mortgage, lease or otherwise manage and dispose of the property desciribed herein, in fee simple, with or without consideration, without joinder of the remainderman, and with full power and authority to retain any and all proceeds generated thereby, and upon the death of the life tenant, the remainder, if any, to JOHN DOE..." This is the unnecessary recital of the habendum clause. But, does it do any harm? It simply describes the terms of the foregoing document. The only capacity remains the signer of the document.

"...and severally acknowledged the execution thereto to be her free act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned." Remove the middle part, and this is a common-sounding acknowledgement, is it not?

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/16/10 8:50pm
Msg #332064

The middle part is the main problem

As stated in my post above, the middle part has the notary basically certifying the capacity in which the grantee is receiving the property. That would require the notary to interpret the document.

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 4/16/10 9:00pm
Msg #332065

Re: The middle part is the main problem

I agree with Pat: My impression is that the NP is not certifying capacity. I do think that the notary appears to be certifying the contents of the document. I understand the lawyer was simply attempting to identify the document, but I think he went too far and the notarization certifies what amounts to the four corners of the entire document, not just the identity of the document.

Reply by Pat/IL on 4/16/10 10:59pm
Msg #332080

Re: The middle part is the main problem

The way I read it, the notary is certifying that Jane Doe, on April 12, 2010, signed the foregoing document... And then a description of the foregoing document ensues. I think it is as wierd as you do, but I don't see it as notarizing anyone's capacity.

I think Hugh is probably right about this being drafted by an attorney. And, if that is the case, and the attorney is also the notary, and is legally representing the interests of the grantor, who also appears to be the grantee, then I would also see no UPL either. Just a lawyer who charges by the word, most likely.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/17/10 1:19am
Msg #332094

Re: The middle part is the main problem

Whether or not the middle section (which I just skimmed over) has anything to do with capacity, I thin is beside the point. It sure doesn't have anything to do with how the signer was identified, the fact that she personally appeared before the notary and that she signed the document willingly and that she acknowledged that she signed the document in question. It's asking the notary to certify to a lot of facts that he or she has no way of knowing and shouldn't care about. I agree that it makes more sense for all that other "stuff" to be in the body of the deed, not in the notary certificate.

'Course, I'm probably biased by California law...

Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/17/10 4:48pm
Msg #332197

Re: Just out of curiosity . . .

"an unremarried widow"

I don't know if that's a capacity because we don't deal with capacity here, but it would seem to me that if your state doesn't allow you to include the phrase "husband and wife" in the notarization, then this wouldn't fly either.

Besides, how is the notary supposed to know if this is true and accurate?

Reply by Cari on 4/18/10 3:17pm
Msg #332258

seems to me, that this should have been an affidavit...

instead of an acknowledgment....

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/16/10 10:00pm
Msg #332074

These are tried and true terms of art in Property Law.

I thought I was a pretty good writer when I went to law school at 50. Ha! "Legaleze" was severely penalized in our writings, and plain, short, and right-on won the day.

The devil's in the details, the saying goes. In Law, the devil's in the precision of language, and analysis of the rules to the facts of an issue, and hopefully come away with a favorable ruling.

So you're spot on, Hugh, this gobbledegook is meant to be. But I stick with plain English to win the day...

Thank you Miss Watson, Mrs. Daly, and Miss Tucker; Mr. Rubenstein, Mrs. Lutz, and Mr. Roberts; and all college professors who cracked the whip.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/16/10 8:05pm
Msg #332057

Re: Talk about not getting the concept of a notarization! n/m

Reply by Julie/MI on 4/17/10 8:05am
Msg #332106

Seems to be a bit of embellishment here....or maybe just a bit of humor.....see title companies DO have a clue as they are the ones that need to guarantee title. I think Mr Robert is having a bit of fun --especially since "capacity" seems to be a frequent subject on this board. JMHO

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/17/10 6:00pm
Msg #332202

If you are insinuating that I made this up...

... I didn't. I copied it directly from the deed presented to me.