Posted by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/21/11 12:43pm
Msg #380840

I just read that ...

<<Florida includes a special provision where a disabled person may direct a Notary to sign the disabled person’s name to a document in the presence of two impartial witnesses.>>

This is a great provision - one of several in Florida law - that I wish CA would adopt. I've had a few signings where ... well ... the spouse long ago should have had POA, but that's another issue - but where the signer was completely unable to sign - not even make a mark. Their spouse up until now had been "signing" for them - i.e. putting the pen in their hand and moving their hand around, kinda like a Oiji board. Anyway, it's complete unacceptable that a notary has to walk away from a person like that (think Chris Reeves) ... except FL has is covered. Another FL law I like is that nobody can take an oath for someone else (as I understand it). So when signing with POA, a signer is not forced to take an oath for a name aff or sig aff for, say, their absent spouse, just because some lender or TC wants to see ink on every page, not accepting that someone cannot swear to tell the truth for someone else, especially about things they may have no knowledge of. FL also has some sensible ID provisions that CA does not - tho the longer I'm in the loan-signing business, my observation is that anything goes here in that department. The only FL law I would hate is the one where you have to sign and notarize in front of the document signer. Yikes! If I can't kick back and notarize later - preferably after a soothing glass of merlot - well, what the heck?!?!?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 4/21/11 12:47pm
Msg #380841

Think of it this way, Goldgirl

If you were in FL, once you kicked back with that Merlot, you wouldn't have to work while drinking it - you could REALLY kick back and relax because your job is done!!...

Reply by Teresa/FL on 4/21/11 12:57pm
Msg #380847

That's right Linda! After some signings I could really use

a drink.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 4/21/11 12:55pm
Msg #380845

It does provide a solution in some cases, but

getting a lender or TC to agree to using this signature method would not be easy. There are many lenders who do not allow loans to be signed by an AIF, so getting them to understand this provision of the FL notary statutes and to OK it's use is very unlikely, in my opinion.

There is also the requirement for two witnesses. So many people do not want to involve others in their sensitive financial transactions.

Regarding oaths given to AIF signers, I have had many discussions with TCs about this and have found it difficult to make them understand. They just want the signature notarized...

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/21/11 1:10pm
Msg #380848

Re: It does provide a solution in some cases, but

<<Regarding oaths given to AIF signers, I have had many discussions with TCs about this and have found it difficult to make them understand. They just want the signature notarized...>>

EXACTLY! What boneheads.

It appears, then, Teresa, that depsite having all these helpful legal provisions, the work has only begun getting TCs/lenders to accept them!

Still, I'm surprised the lobby for the disabled hasn't pushed for a similar provision here in CA re having the notary sign for totally disabled borrowers. And, yes, some people don't want others to know their business.... still, signature by mark in CA requires 2 witnesses to the making of the mark. Same as for using 2 credible identifying witnesses. Everybody has a home loan --- so it's generally not a big deal - as long as the witnesses aren't snooping at the docs!

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 4/21/11 1:22pm
Msg #380853

I would have someone hold the pen in their mouths to

make a mark on the paper before I would sign for them.

That is a law that I think Florida could do without.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/21/11 1:49pm
Msg #380857

Robert, please say why.

To me, this seems more secure....a notary and two witnesses vs. a notary and a signing witness.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 4/21/11 3:13pm
Msg #380882

In Florida - whether the person signs by mark or the notary

"signs"on behalf of the person, two witnesses (other than the notary) still have to be there.

Having the notary sign on the person's behalf is just not a good idea. It is far less secure than a signature by mark. Either way, two disinterested witnesses have to be present.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/21/11 8:06pm
Msg #380940

Right, but to me

it seems like the signature of the person signing on behalf of someone else is traceable to that person, more so than a struggle to get a pen onto paper and making a mark.

I'm aware of the signing by mark issue requiring two witnesses in Florida. In Texas the notary makes the mark in the presences of one disinterested witness.

My earlier point was meant to be that having two witnesses and the would be signer, plus a notary present as secure as one person of *non-disabled* status signing before a notary.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 4/21/11 1:58pm
Msg #380862

Re: It does provide a solution in some cases, but

The witness requirements for signature by mark is the same in FL as it is in CA. Ditto the requirement for 2 credible identifying witnesses. I have only used these two methods a handful of times in my over 16 year notary career, and all of those have occured within the past 8 years in my work as a mobile notary.

I have never had the opportunity to sign for someone at their direction. The few times it might have been useful there were other issues (no witnesses available or the "signer" was not competent).

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 4/21/11 1:21pm
Msg #380851

>>>The only FL law I would hate is the one where you have to sign and notarize in front of the document signer<<<

This SHOULD be the law in every state. Affixing the seal is part of the notarization... and the notarization must take place in the presence of the signer. Very basic.

I wouldn't envy Florida if I were you. At least California's laws have helped significantly reduce the number of notaries, while Florida's notary population spins out of control.

Reply by janCA on 4/21/11 1:37pm
Msg #380855

I agree, Robert. Signing your name and affixing the seal is part of the notarization and should not be left until later. It should always be done in front of the signer as that makes it complete. God forbid, but what if something should happen to the notary on his/her way home and all these docs are signed and no complete notarizations. CA SOS has messed up by not stating this in their handbook. All it states is "The certificate of acknowledgment must be filled completely out at the time the notary public's signature and seal are affixed."

Reply by Julie/MI on 4/21/11 2:44pm
Msg #380872

Re: I just read that ...Michigan too

I can sign for the person and we just add special wording, no impartial witnesses unless the act has been changed recently.

That's fine for general notary work, but for loan closings, it's not helpful because most of the docs are not notarized.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/21/11 2:52pm
Msg #380876

Great point, Julie. n/m