Posted by HisHughness on 8/8/11 12:46pm
Msg #392998

Query

I have a lender that is insisting that I provide new certifications because I struck from California acknowledgements that portion which subjects me to California perjury laws. I have told the lender I notarize in compliance with the laws of my jurisdiction, and California recorders are obligated to accept that. Texas law requires no such representation by a notary.

Thoughts?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/8/11 12:56pm
Msg #392999

I cross that wording out of my certs too

Not required in Florida so it's not a part of my cert and I've never had one kicked back because of it. I'm thinking many companies saw that CA wording and thought 'Wow, that looks good...let's use that from now on no matter where the signing is"...duh

Provide the lender with a copy of CA's wording about accepting out-of-state acks...maybe that will appease them.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 8/8/11 1:07pm
Msg #393003

Dittoes to Linda's response. Never had a problem.

My state, Oregon's rules. I line through and initial.

Reply by HisHughness on 8/8/11 1:40pm
Msg #393015

Re: I cross that wording out of my certs too

The escrow officer wants <Texas> certificates. It isn't registering with her that a Caifornia certificate amended to Texas requirements is a Texas certificate.

Sometimes, I suspect that my ex-wife has hacked my email and is in league with these people.

Reply by jba/fl on 8/8/11 1:43pm
Msg #393018

I cross out the entire certificate and add my own except

on the mortgage, which is usually correct, but if not, I amend it as it could affect recording fees.

Some are just so confused by their own titles.

Reply by Alz on 8/8/11 5:43pm
Msg #393072

Which ex-wife? n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 8/8/11 8:26pm
Msg #393089

Take it from a dual divorcee' .... it does not matter.

After awhile, they all run together...in fact, after 15 years after last divorce, the entire collection is officially referred to as one big X. No distinction among them. Next question?

Reply by Alz on 8/8/11 11:51pm
Msg #393112

Really? ROFL n/m

Reply by Jack/AL on 8/8/11 12:58pm
Msg #393000

I agree with you, and for the same reasons. I struck from perhaps 6 over a 12 month period, but have not had any over several months. I assumed that the companies which had entered the verbiage had wised up. I also assumed that they just might be including the wording in docs for signings in California, but since I'm not a California notary Public, I neither know nor care whether it is appropriate for their use. There were no complaints or repercussions due to my striking, of which I am aware.

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/8/11 1:05pm
Msg #393001

Calif Civil CODE 1189 Page 42 of the 2011 Calif notary handbook states,...

(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.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/8/11 1:08pm
Msg #393004

Thanks James. I'm having issues connecting to some

sites today - not sure what's going on - but couldn't get to the CA handbook...

grr..

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 8/8/11 1:37pm
Msg #393012

Actually, I don't have a problem signing them as is. Even

though the "CA language" is not required in IL, it IS permissable (IL requirements as to form
of acknowledgement are pretty loosey goosey)
Don't have a CA ack handy, but the "problem" part is somthing like
"Under penalties of perjury of the state of CA, I swear that I verified the identity of the partiy(s) signing the doc, and that I saw them sign of their own free will" That is what I always do anyway when signing and stamping an ack.
I figure that the perjury laws of CA are pretty much the same as in IL. If you sign a knowingly false statement under oath, then you are in deep doo doo.
Not worth the effort to cross it out, and never get any blowback like you just did.

Reply by Ernest__CT on 8/8/11 1:40pm
Msg #393016

I'm with Bob_Chicago. As usual. n/m

Reply by HisHughness on 8/8/11 1:42pm
Msg #393017

Re: Actually, I don't have a problem signing them as is. Even

I'm not going to willingly submit myself to the laws of another state ever.

Reply by jba/fl on 8/8/11 1:45pm
Msg #393019

Re: Actually, I don't have a problem signing them as is. Even

What about altered state? (LoL - time for a little levity to lighten the mood)

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 8/8/11 2:20pm
Msg #393027

I believe that (at least to some extent)you submit yourself

to another state's laws when you execute a document that you know will be recorded in that other state.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/8/11 2:36pm
Msg #393032

No...as the notary you have to abide by, and are bound by

your OWN state's laws - not another state's ...and that's what he's saying...

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 8/8/11 2:53pm
Msg #393034

"as the notary you have to abide by, and are bound by

your OWN state's laws." Agree, but still stand behind what I said.

Reply by MichiganAl on 8/8/11 5:33pm
Msg #393070

I don't cross it out, but we have every right to do so

I leave it just because it's kooky California and anything you do to upset their apple cart just isn't worth the trouble (logic and facts seem to escape them), and since I know I'm not committing perjury I don't care what it says about California law. But I can see how others might have a problem with it and they have every right to cross it out. We are subject to our own state laws, not CAs. I just choose to avoid the inevitable headache.

And as with IL, MI is pretty loosey goosey too.

Reply by LynnNC on 8/8/11 3:08pm
Msg #393036

I haven't seen such an acknowledgement

Who is the lender?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/8/11 3:11pm
Msg #393037

I get them all the time Lynn...

they're usually in the title docs, and I get them from all different companies...

Like I said - someone saw it, said "gee, I like that" and voila! We have the birth of an incorrect (in some states) acknowledgement.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 8/8/11 3:20pm
Msg #393040

Here is an example, Lynn. Again , I do not have a problem

signing them as is:



"State of
County of _____________________________)
On _________________________ before me, _________________________________________
(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)"

Usually see them when either the propety and/or the title co is located in CA

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/8/11 3:48pm
Msg #393054

Bob, just so you know...I've encountered them

with Florida title companies on Florida property...

They seem to like the wording.

Reply by Buddy Young on 8/8/11 3:41pm
Msg #393053

You have to comply with the laws of your own state, I don't even know what the laws are in other states. So if the wording is incorrect for your state , then attach a loose leaf ack to their form. That way you don't have to cross out anything.

Reply by Donna McDaniel on 8/8/11 6:52pm
Msg #393080

Our manual only says to add in the necessary elements to comply with FL law, it does not mandate that we cross out any other wording used by any other state.

Reply by NJDiva on 8/8/11 8:36pm
Msg #393091

I always cross out CA...

print in New Jersey and initial. Never had a problem.

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/8/11 9:01pm
Msg #393101

Re: Not telling you what to do but sometimes it's to your

advantage to see the difference. Like the difference between IHOP, Marie Callender and Denny's. Or how about Carl's Jr, Burger King and MacDonald.....everything's the same except when it's different.

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/8/11 8:57pm
Msg #393099

Like Linda said, I believe other states just like that "penalty of perjury" sentence. I think the lender's problem was the strike outs on the sentence they like. Not your problem, but the lender's problem. For the lender's piece of mind and less annoyance for you to have them complain about a perfectly legal and correct notarization on your part, that instead of striking out the "penalty of perjury" sentence" just strike out the entire acknowledgment with one long diagonal line, write "See attached Texas compliant Ack" and add a Texas cert, which would be clean, complete, and free of strike outs.

I only do the strike outs when it's just a few words such as "in and for said state" or changing the venue. If more than a few words needs altering to make the cert compliant, I reject the entire cert and add a clean, strike-free cert.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 8/8/11 10:48pm
Msg #393107

There are some lenders like Provident who don't accept crossouts. In that case, I attach an AZ Ack and there is no problem. Otherwise, I cross out and initial.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/10/11 2:59pm
Msg #393262

I agree with those who said that the lender has no right to tell you what to put (or delete) from your certificates. BUT unless it conflicts with your state's notary laws, I see no harm in complying with a lender's request. However, it's pretty hard to do that if you don't know in advance! You're the attorney, Hugh, so I wouldn't presume to comment on the issue of another state's perjury laws, but if I knew the content to be accurate, I probably wouldn't worry about it myself.

Frankly, this whole discussion surprised me a little bit. It seems to me that people have just gotten into the habit of California-bashing just because they've been hearing so many comments about various CA requirements - often based on incorrect information. Maybe it's because we have so many notaries here - and so many with less than optimal training - so that we're bound to get some people posting misinformation. Frankly, I think things here are more straightforward and simpler than in many other states. (But then we all see things from our own perspective, don't we... )

I think if you take California out of the picture, this situation isn't any different than what we all face all the time. I find it common to have multiple different versions of acknowledgement wording within the same package and I don't really give it much thought - except for the Texas ones. (They seem to have lots of ack's with long document names - and I like to write that info on my notary certs, as well as in my journal. Very time consuming!)

To me, the decision of what to do is very simple. If it's a CA property, it's a no-brainer - it's either correct or not, and if it's not, I replace the entire certificate. If it's for an out-of-state property, if I have the opportunity to check on-line to see what verbiage that state's SOS (or notary authority) publishes, I'll see if that matches the DOT/Mortgage - the only doc that gets recorded (except for Deeds, of course). If what is printed on the DOT/Mortgage matches, I use it; if not I replace it. On any other documents, if it doesn't comply with CA verbiage, it gets changed.

As for jurats, all that are executed within this state must have specific verbiage, regardless of where the documents originate or end up. It's very simple. It's either correct or not, and if it isn't, we either stamp on the correct verbiage or add a loose certificate. Nothing complicated about that!

Reply by Robert Williams on 9/11/12 7:01pm
Msg #433975

I agree with you Hugh, to an extent. I run into this more and more often these days and simply line out "California" and write in "Ohio"

That said, I probably should just cross the whole thing out, but since the wording only refers to the acknowledgement I let it stand with the minor change.

So far I haven't had an issue with it...