Posted by enotary/va on 4/18/10 8:50pm
Msg #332286

extra acknowledgments

Newbie’s, watch out for SS asking for extra acknowledgments incase you miss one. This was in the instructions for a signing I got last week.

( Be sure to double check the package for accuracy, for any shipment costs incurred by re-shipping the docs back to you will be deducted from your fee, we don’t like to see this happen, so please double, triple check your work!!

Recommended to include a couple extra general acknowledgement forms, just in case you missed a stamp or a signature on some of the docs. )

Not something you want to do.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 4/18/10 11:43pm
Msg #332298

Yes! A Rule, etched in Stone. n/m

Reply by PAW on 4/19/10 7:17am
Msg #332304

More than just "Not something you want to do."

In many states, it would be illegal to simply include a notarial certificate unless it is attached to a specific document, signatures and act.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/19/10 7:27am
Msg #332305

I'd be surprised if it wasn't illegal in ALL states

Personally I think we should do away with the whole concept of loose certificates. I know I'm just dreaming here, but uniform acknowledgments and jurats for the entire country would help to get these docs in order so that the pre-printed acknowledgments are acceptable as is. Title companies throw in whatever ridiculous wording they want. Maybe our supposed "advocate" NNA should do something about this.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 4/19/10 7:48am
Msg #332307

Re: I'd be surprised if it wasn't illegal in ALL states

<< Title companies throw in whatever ridiculous wording they want. >>

Totally agree, Robert. I would love to see uniform acks and jurats.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/19/10 8:30am
Msg #332309

Personally, I think Fla.'s certificates should be the model

rather than California's ... their acknowledgment form is just too lengthy to be practical. Florida's certificates are simple and include the type of ID.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/19/10 2:12pm
Msg #332336

Re: Personally, I think Fla.'s certificates should be the model


Sorry but isn't this rather lengthy??

"The foregoing instrument was acnkowledged before me this 19th day of April, 2010, by Jane Doe, both individually and as trustee for **name of trust**, who produced ________ as identification."

Reply by PAW on 4/19/10 2:20pm
Msg #332341

Re: Personally, I think Fla.'s certificates should be the model

Not sure if you intended to post that response in this thread or the other one (ID question). However, yes it is lengthy, but FL requires acknowledgment wording to contain the capacity of the signer, unless the represented capacity is as an individual. In the case where the signer actually signs the document twice, once as an individual and again as a trustee, Robert correctly provided the wording needed to show the signer is acting in both capacities.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/19/10 2:34pm
Msg #332343

Re: Personally, I think Fla.'s certificates should be the model

Of course, I was addressing the "lengthy issue". Robert is Usually correct when it comes to most docs and Fl Docs in particular. Here is Ca, it has been my experience in signings that the TC usually provides instructions on how they want it signed and then we attach a all purpose Acknowledgment.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/19/10 3:16pm
Msg #332351

Re: Personally, I think Fla.'s certificates should be the model

Even with the capacity included, 99% of Florida's acknowledgment certificates are substantially shorter than California's two paragraph acknowledgment. I think, if there were to be uniform certificates country-wide, it would be impractical for everyone to use a certificate like California's.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/19/10 3:33pm
Msg #332358

Re: Personally, I think Fla.'s certificates should be the model

Good for you Robert and what you think. Maybe you could design an acknowledgment that will be accepted nationwide. If you send it to me, I'll forward it to Debra Bowen.

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/19/10 3:35pm
Msg #332360

Who is Debra Bowen? n/m

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/19/10 3:36pm
Msg #332361

Re: Who is Debra Bowen?

Sorry, I thought you might know. She's our SOS.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/19/10 8:23am
Msg #332308

Re: I'd be surprised if it wasn't illegal in ALL states

Texas independent streak rises again...

No to loose certificates, of course. Ridiculous.

*I know I'm just dreaming here, but uniform acknowledgments and jurats for the entire country would help to get these docs in order so that the pre-printed acknowledgments are acceptable as is. Title companies throw in whatever ridiculous wording they want. Maybe our supposed "advocate" NNA should do something about this.*

We don't need uniformity across the US. It's working fine like it is where it matters as far as I can tell. The truth is that it would make it easier on notaries. Lawmakers don't see that as important as the property laws for which notary certificates do many of their most important functions. To change to uniformity would make states have to create more uniform property laws (mho) and don't see that happening.

The NNA has tried. I'm thrilled Texas hasn't joined the bandwagon for their Model Act. I'm thrilled Texas doesn't go along with much of anything that the NNA promotes.

Reply by Sylvia_FL on 4/19/10 9:46am
Msg #332313

Totally agree with you Brenda:)

And as Marilyn says the NNA is not an advocate for notaries. (unless it will line their pockets)

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/19/10 11:24pm
Msg #332448

Very key point!

"To change to uniformity would make states have to create more uniform property laws (mho) and don't see that happening."

Precisely. The certificates are merely a reflection of many individual laws of the different states which reflect their individual needs, requirements and opinions. It would take changing a whole lot more than notary law, imho. I don't see it happening either.

Reply by MW/VA on 4/19/10 8:31am
Msg #332310

Re: I'd be surprised if it wasn't illegal in ALL states

One very important lesson I learned in this business is that the NNA is NOT our advocate.
They are in business to make money!
Uniform acks and jurats might be possible, but I'd hate to end up with anything like CA has.
The wording of notarial language comes from the lawyers, not the NNA.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/19/10 9:50am
Msg #332314

Someone on this forum mentioned tracking their ACK s by numbering them. That would eliminate a lot of potential problems if you're willing to put the extra work in.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/19/10 10:04am
Msg #332315

I don't know how others do it, but any loose certificate I attach contains the name of the document, document date, names of the signers, and the # of pages in the document. I can be reasonably certain it won't be used for anything else...

Reply by jba/fl on 4/19/10 11:01am
Msg #332319

Ditto to this procedure....safe, secure. n/m

Reply by parkerc/ME on 4/19/10 3:38pm
Msg #332362

Re: extra acknowledgments - ditto here also n/m

Reply by Robert/FL on 4/19/10 10:53am
Msg #332318

You can reference your journal entry # on the loose cert n/m

Reply by CaliNotary on 4/19/10 5:32pm
Msg #332377

Has anyone here actually experienced misuse of a loose ack?

I've been a notary for 7 years and I haven't. It seems to me like a waste of time and energy to worry so much about about something that rarely happens; from the number of postings I see on the subject on this board you'd think it was a major problem for us.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 4/19/10 10:55pm
Msg #332445

How would you know if it was misused? n/m

Reply by rengel/CA on 4/19/10 11:11am
Msg #332321

I sent an extra acknowledgment once...

It was just what they requested, a 'blank' acknowledgment. No writing on it, no seal, no signature, just a blank acknowledgment.

The SS was not happy. Oh well........... that was what they asked for!

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/19/10 11:42am
Msg #332323

Re: I sent an extra acknowledgment once...

Now I like that response.