Posted by GOLDGIRL/CA on 12/9/10 12:19am
Msg #364423

What??

This notice was included in overnight docs from a major TC:

"To out-of-state notary: Please do not cross out "California" in the acknowledgment verbiage: "I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California..." this must remain as California and pertains to laws where the document is recording and not the State the document is signed in."

Does this make sense to non-California notaries? If the tables were turned and I had to certify under the laws of the state of, say, Rhode Island, how could I do that, given that I am completely ignorant of the laws of RI...? I think this is totally bogus, and an out-of-state notary should just attach their own loose ack .... besides the ack is based on where your patootie is at the time of the signing - not where the document will be recorded. Or am I reading this wrong?

Reply by HisHughness on 12/9/10 1:14am
Msg #364427

Notarization laws of the jurisdiction where the signing takes place are applicable. However, you have said that if a question of perjury arises, you submit yourself to the laws of California with respect to the perjury.

Attach an acknowledgment from your jurisdiction, and tell them to take a long walk on short pier with respect to submitting yourself to the laws of another state.

Reply by RonA/CA on 12/9/10 1:26am
Msg #364428

For documents notarized, with an acknowledgment, in CA and are going to be recorded in CA MUST have the phrase "I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct." Also "personally known to me" can no longer be used. If the documents are going to be recorded in another state then the acknowledgment for that state can be completed in CA.
As for documents requiring a jurat, regardless of where the documents are going to be recorded, a CA jurat with the phrase "proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me" MUST be used (no exceptions).

Reply by HisHughness on 12/9/10 1:49am
Msg #364429

I have notarized many California transactions since the enactment of the new law. The title companies have uniformly agreed that I may attach a Texas acknowledgment without the perjury provision. There apparently has never been a problem with recordation.

I would not submit myself to the laws of another jurisdiction. The problems that could pose to a litigant are severe.

Reply by SueW/Tn on 12/9/10 4:25am
Msg #364432

110% with Hugh on this (omg omg). Any NSA in any other state is NOT going to adhere to California notary law, we will do what our own state requires, period. I too have had no problems attaching my own acks, someone is a bit dizzy with power if they think a simple e-mail from the "home office" is going to change regulations across borders.

Reply by Lee/AR on 12/9/10 11:15am
Msg #364454

Agree, Hugh... and this is what I do...long but correct

Cross it out, initial correction and include the following on a separate brightly colored paper.
(These really are the laws involved.) Sorry, but the boldfacing/italicizing does not show up here, but the 2b part of CA's Civil Code is what everyone needs to know. Works every time!

"The California ‘under penalty of perjury’ clause is not applicable in my state as Arkansas has no such law/statute/code. For those who think it should be completed—disregarding AR law, I refer you to the following authorities:

Excerpt from the United States Constitution:

Article 4 – The States
Section 1 - State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

AND…

California’s own Law on the subject of out-of-state notarization.
(2) (b) Note italicized & boldfaced portion:

Civil Code § 1189.
(a) (1) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state shall be in the following form:
State of California
County of __________

On ______________________________________________ before me, (here insert name and title of the officer) , personally appeared ____________________________ _ , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ____________________________________________ (Seal)


(2) A notary public who willfully states as true any material fact that he or she knows to be false shall be subject to a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000). An action to impose a civil penalty under this subdivision may be brought by the Secretary of State in an administrative proceeding or any public prosecutor in superior court, and shall be enforced as a civil judgment. A public prosecutor shall inform the secretary of any civil penalty imposed under this section.

(b) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall be sufficient in this state if it is taken in accordance with the laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made.

(c) On documents to be filed in another state or jurisdiction of the United States, a California notary public may complete any acknowledgment form as may be required in that other state or jurisdiction on a document, provided the form does not require the notary to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law.

(d) An acknowledgment provided prior to January 1, 1993, and conforming to applicable provisions of former Sections 1189, 1190, 1190a, 1190.1, 1191, and 1192, as repealed by Chapter 335 of the Statutes of 1990, shall have the same force and effect as if those sections had not been repealed."

Reply by jba/fl on 12/9/10 11:58am
Msg #364465

Lee/AR - this solves problem well - am borrowing for those

who just can't quite grasp truths unless in their little hands in black and bright yellow. TY

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/9/10 3:16am
Msg #364431

The operative words in your statement were "in CA", and of course, everything you stated is true for those of us notarizing here. However, Goldgirl/CA was referring to a notice directed to notaries in other states.

Also, the following statement is found in Civil Code 1189:

"(b) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall be sufficient in this state
if it is taken in accordance with the laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made."

Seems to me that this would negate the request from the tc.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/9/10 5:21am
Msg #364436

I don't care what the TC says

I am not bound by the laws of California. I am bound by the laws of Florida. We do not execute any notarial certificates under "penalties of perjury" because our certificates are prima facie evidence if the facts stated therein, i.e. The court will presume our certificate is correct without clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

And further, since I do not know what the penalty for perjury is in California - for all I know it could be death by hanging - I will not certify anything thereunder.

I would tell the TC to take a long walk off a short cliff.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 12/9/10 6:29am
Msg #364437

I recently did a purchase closing for a CA property. On the DOT I crossed out the CA ack and stamped my VA ack wording onto the same page, completed the certificate and applied my notary stamp.

TC emails me the next day after receiving the package and says that it will be rejected by the recorder's office and they need me to send a CA ack ASAP, which they attached for my convenience. I email them back, saying that I am confused at their request because I am not a CA notary - I am a VA notary and I use VA certificates, and that I will not certify under penalty of perjury laws of the state of CA. Then TC calls me and says that they have out of state notaries do their packages all the time and the other notaries just cross out the CA part on the perjury statement and write in their own state. Or they attach a loose certificate, which she said would have been fine (I'm wondering what is the difference between attaching a loose certificate and me stamping my ack wording onto the existing notary page of the DOT?)

Long story short - I called the county recorders office in CA and spoke to them. I even faxed them a sample of what the document looked like with my ack stamp. They said it would be accepted.

I called TC back and informed them that the recorders office said the document would be accepted and I never heard back otherwise from the TC. This TC said that crossing out CA would have been fine. Your TC is saying NOT to do that. They all say that the recorders office will not accept out of state ack, but that's not true! I hate notarizing CA loan docs because this issue arises every single time for me!

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 12/9/10 8:16am
Msg #364438

Actually , I just change venue and sign as is. All that the

CA ackowledment states is that I believed that I had the right folks in front of me signing,
and that if I did not really think that "they were them, then I am lying and in deep doo doo.
Really no more than as is reqd by me in IL.
Perjury in all states is a felony. More than enough info for me not to commit it , even if I was
so inclined.
Don't think that it worth the time to attach a loose ack.

Reply by Les_CO on 12/9/10 9:51am
Msg #364443

Re: Actually , I just change venue and sign as is. All that the

Ditto. I have no problem with CA perjury laws.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 12/9/10 9:53am
Msg #364444

I have no problem with CA perjury laws

I pray that they don't require that I put alfalfa sprouts on ANYTHING that I plan to eat.

Reply by James Dawson on 12/9/10 9:56am
Msg #364445

Re: I have no problem with CA perjury laws

...As long as you don't smoke it.....without a prescription. LOL

Reply by jba/fl on 12/9/10 10:16am
Msg #364449

Alfalfa sprouts help reduce water on the brain.... n/m

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 12/9/10 4:18pm
Msg #364500

Given a choice,I'll take the water in lieu of the green hair n/m

Reply by Ali/IL on 12/9/10 10:34am
Msg #364451

Re: Actually , I just change venue and sign as is. All that the

I too do as Bob does. Change the venue and sign. Hey , we need that water in the brain.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/9/10 8:35am
Msg #364439

I, too, always line through that language in the cert.. n/m

Reply by Stoli on 12/9/10 11:25am
Msg #364455

Isn't Virginia a commonwealth, not a state?

If this is true, the venue on a California acknowledgment would be incorrect if executed in Virginia.

Reply by Les_CO on 12/9/10 12:31pm
Msg #364469

Re: Isn't Virginia a commonwealth, not a state?

I think we’re getting into semantics here? But I do have a question What about “insular areas” like Washington D.C., or Guam, US Virgin Islands, American Soma, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands? Do we have notaries commissioned in these places?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/9/10 1:12pm
Msg #364474

DC does Les...and they can't notarize outside of DC...

From the Handbook:

"Jurisdiction

District of Columbia commissions can be used only in the District of Columbia. You
may not notarize documents in Maryland or Virginia, or any other place that is not DC.
The person for whom you are notarizing a document must be in your presence in the
District of Columbia at the time the document is notarized."

http://os.dc.gov/os/frames.asp?doc=/os/lib/os/services/notary/dcnotaryhandbook2008_final.pdf

Reply by CapCityAgent on 12/9/10 2:36pm
Msg #364484

Re: DC does Les...and they can't notarize outside of DC...

I am commissioned in the District of Columbia. You are on point Linda as always!

Reply by Les_CO on 12/9/10 3:46pm
Msg #364495

Re: Isn't Virginia a commonwealth, not a state?

I did a little checking, I couldn’t find out about American Samoa, or The Northern Mariana Islands. But the four Commonwealths, and Washington DC, and Guam, are like other States (except Louisiana) In Puerto Rico notaries must be attorneys, in the US Virgin Islands appointed by the Governor, a resident for five years, and/or admitted to the bar. Apparently notarizations done in these places carry the same weight, as in other US jurisdictions….
Sorry about this post…….it’s been a slow day.

Reply by MW/VA on 12/9/10 2:47pm
Msg #364486

Maybe the NNA needs to "educate" the tc's & recorders

offices in CA. A notary can only follow the laws of the state in which they are commissioned. LOL
What is it about CA that makes them think they will get everyone to comply with their way?
I have usually just completed the CA ack, with it's "under perjury" language. IMO a notary completing a false ack would be guilty of perjury anywhere. We also comply with certain state's requests regarding requiring witnesses, etc. It would be a lot simpler if the states could get together on some standard language to use (hahaha)--never happen.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/9/10 4:47pm
Msg #364503

Re: Maybe the NNA needs to "educate" the tc's & recorders

***A notary can only follow the laws of the state in which they are commissioned.***

I think some are misconstruing the California requirement.

As I interpret it, the provision does not in any way apply to the notarization process. Even for a California transaction, the notarization itself proceeds according to the jurisdiction in which it occurs.

However, if the issue of perjury arises, that will be tried under California law; not in California, necessarily, but under the California code. If, for example, Texas law says that perjury is committed only if the questioned communication is material to the transaction, and California does not impose that requirement, then California law would apply.

An analagous situation would be a note. Often such negotiable instruments will stipulate that they are to be construed under the laws of a given jurisdiction, even though an action over the note might be tried in another jurisdiction.

Thus, a notary in any other state can safely execute the California acknowledgment without amendment if they wish. I would not do so, and have refused to do so thus far, but nothing other than a well-developed instinct of self-preservation prevents me from doing so.

JMHaUO (Just my honest and unadulerated opinion)

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/10/10 1:40am
Msg #364582

Re: Maybe the NNA needs to "educate" the tc's & recorders

"A notary can only follow the laws of the state in which they are commissioned." Right!

Whoever made the request to the notary in the original post simply doesn't know what they are talking about. If anyone runs into this again, I suggest they just refer the "uneducated" to the CA Civil Code in the Notary Handbook from the SOS (available online). As I posted above, in section 1189, it states the following:

"(b) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall be sufficient in this state
if it is taken in accordance with the laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made."

To me, this clearly states that if a notary in another state follows their own state's notary laws when completing an acknowledgment, than it "shall be sufficient in this state" i.e. California. I don't know what else there is to discuss on this. If whatever you do is in compliance with your own state laws, the tc should accept it. Period.

My opinion on this is that they are possibly so used to CA notaries screwing this up that they automatically reject it (whether it's the tc or Recorder's office) without noticing that it's from out of state. Again, it seems to me that if they are requiring an out-of-state notary to include the Penalty of Perjury clause, they are just plain wrong.

BTW, please don't blame all of CA for one ignorant tc or Recorder's office person being clueless... ;>) (Yeah, I know there's certainly more than one, but lots of us DO get things right, from time to time....)