Posted by Marian_in_CA on 3/10/10 7:36pm
Msg #326391

Weird Affidavit Request...

I received a request today for a non-real estate related loan. No big issue... until they email an affidavit that the instructions specifically say that *I* am to fill out with the details... then add my jurat form and notarize. Well, I figure... fat chance, I'll have the borrower fill it out, not me.

But then I read it. This is a condensed version with the key parts:


"Before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of ________________ , personally appeared ____________ (Affiant), known to me to be the person described herein, and that person did present [type of ID identification], namely: [add ID info here], as proof of identity and being duly sworn, says that he is the person named above; that this affidavit is used to establish his identity and that the person understands that falsification of this information is a felony...."

Then it asks for the Affiant's signature, address and phone.

Followed by the notary signature and seal area.



Okay, so obviously, this is a huge red flag (for CA folks) -- but what is interesting is that this is a company from California. I like them, and they are good to their notaries (and pay well) so I'm not going to mention their name... but I'm really confused. Are notaries actually signing these??

Remember, they aren't asking the borrower to fill this out. The instructions clearly say that the notary should fill out all of the details and use their state jurat wording.

Why am *I* the one affirming the data is true and that the signer understands he could be committing a felony?

I think this is easily fixed by reworking the form... and I have contacted them about it, but the form sure gives me the willies as it sits now.

Reply by Cari on 3/10/10 8:26pm
Msg #326404

I've seen this language every now and again.....

not a big deal to fill out and notarize. I see ur point though....

Reply by Susan Fischer on 3/10/10 8:44pm
Msg #326406

It is strange, but as long as the affiant signs, then

aren't we just notarizing the affiant's signature?

What I scratch my head about are the ones that go on and on about doing my notarial duties, want my signature, and want me to then notarize *my* signature. Sheesh. Of course we don't.

I see these kinds of "affidavits" as someone's idea of trying to make things 'legaler' (tongue-in-cheek).

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/10/10 10:14pm
Msg #326413

It's a big deal in CA...

Several issues:

1. They want the notary to prepare the document for the signer.
2. They want the notary to affirm that the signer understands something.
3. They want the notary to notarize their own signature.

All of those things are no-no's in CA.

Hopefully, we can get that reworked... I do agree that it's somebody's idea of being more "legal" -- clearly written by someone who isn't aware of notarial law.

I was just surprised by their instructions... which seem newish to me. All the same, it's a good paying company and solid work and I'm sure they just don't realize exactly what they're doing.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/11/10 3:40am
Msg #326424

Re: It's a big deal in CA...

I agree, Marian. I've fairly often seen docs (mostly from out of state title co's) where it begins with ""Before me, the undersigned Notary Public for the State of ________________ , personally appeared ____________ (Affiant),...", followed by the content of what the document is all about. It's obviously combining the wording of the document with the notary verbiage all mixed in, which, as you pointed out, doesn't work for us.. Sometimes, I've been able to get away with lining out certain sections and replacing it with my jurat stamp without completely making it meaningless, but it's not always possible without getting into actual rewording of the document, which of course, is not allowed by us either. Very frustrating! Even if that's not the case, I never feel right having my name referenced anywhere in the document, even if it is referring to me as the "undersigned" notary. Mostly seems to be on some version of name affidavits.

Good luck!

Reply by Glenn_CA on 3/10/10 9:04pm
Msg #326410

Sometimes companies write their own wording written by a paralegal, and as Susan eludes to, are trying to make it as legal as possible without being aware of the specific wording required by the State of California.

I had something like this by a new company that made personal loans sometime back. I shot them a .pdf of the CA handbook to show them the necessary wording, they re-worked the document, thanked me and business went on.

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/10/10 11:30pm
Msg #326416

In California, you MUST use the compliant wording required by the State of California.

Personally, I would not sign it.

My .02

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/11/10 12:03am
Msg #326418

Yeah, I have no intention of using it as it is now... even if it means I lose the job. My commission is worth more than one job.

We'll wait and see what happens. This is one of those jobs wherein they are overnighting the paperwork to me, save a couple of them that were emailed.

I just hope they don't have other CA notaries blindly using this form. That's the scary part.

Reply by Glenn Strickler on 3/11/10 2:02am
Msg #326422

When I first jumped into this business, I was amazed on how many California companies do not know the proper verbiage, and still I get arguments over this issue.