Posted by azsigning on 12/13/11 9:42am
Msg #406433

How many times do you administer the oath…

Hello everyone - when I have a signing that includes multiple jurats I have been administering the oath for each separate document. Recently a colleague told me that the oath only needed to be administered once per signing session. What say you? (Arizona)

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/13/11 9:54am
Msg #406434

I administer oath for each and every document

whether I'm notarizing 2 or 20.

Reply by Eve on 12/13/11 9:55am
Msg #406435

Re: I administer oath for each and every document

I administer once before the signing starts. No?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/13/11 10:00am
Msg #406436

I do it for each document...or at the least confirm with

them "the statements made here are all true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?" - each document contains different statements they are swearing to - I make sure they do it as to each set of statements.

JMO

Reply by azsigning on 12/13/11 10:03am
Msg #406437

Re: I administer oath for each and every document

That is the question 'whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of multiple oaths...'

Reply by DaveCA/CA on 12/13/11 10:07am
Msg #406438

I administer for every document where required

When people get tired of me, I tell them that I will add them on my list of witnesses that I can use if I'm ever called into court. They can tell the judge that I did in fact ask each time. They will usually laugh at that point. I let them know that this is serious.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/13/11 10:28am
Msg #406443

This is preposterous

A court proceeding is far more solemn and often deals with far weightier matters than a real estate closing. Once a witness is sworn in, he/she is sworn in and a new oath is not administered if the witness is recalled to the stand. At best, the court will remind the witness he/she is still under oath.

The oath I use is below, and it serves for an entire closing. Sometimes, people just insist on making simple things far more burdensome than necessary.

Oath

Do you solemnly swear or affirm, upon pain of perjury, that:

You are ______________________________________________

That the signature you will place on these documents is your customary and usual signature;

That you are executing these documents voluntarily for the purposes and the considerations stated therein; and

That, with respect to any affidavits, the allegations therein are true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 12/13/11 10:43am
Msg #406445

Agree with Hugh. If courts followed the method advocated by

some here, the Clerk would have to re-administer the oath prior to each and every
question to the witness.
Court proceedings would be even more interminable, and some folks might actually have their right arm fall off.

Reply by jba/fl on 12/13/11 11:09am
Msg #406447

Re: Agree with Hugh. Once is enough. n/m

Reply by MistarellaFL on 12/13/11 12:44pm
Msg #406465

I agree too. Once is enough.

Please raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that by signing these affidavits, that they are true and correct to the best of your knowledge under the pains and penalties of perjruy?

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/13/11 1:11pm
Msg #406467

Re: Agree with Hugh. and the others

Agree period, I mean think about it. It's either going to be all yes or all no.

Survey Aff, owners Aff, Occupancy Aff, Sig Aff give me a break!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/13/11 1:19pm
Msg #406468

Not true James...not true at all. n/m

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/13/11 3:18pm
Msg #406486

Linda, how is it not true again?

Just because the actual verbiage may slightly differ from one doc to the other, giving an oath is the same for oath for all, and thus sufficient to meet the requirements of this particular procedure.

I mean you know of a legal reason, or court case where the notaries lack of giving multiple oaths for multiple jurats, in a loan transaction caused the loan to fall through, fail and/or render the notarization null & void, or caused such undue harm to the BO and the court held the notary liable? I'd love to read of such a case! But otherwise, I'd say it was safe to give just one oath for all the jurats involved in the loan transaction.

And unless the BO wants me to give a separate oath for each and every document requiring a jurat, I'm so not going to waste my breath or their time repeating the oaths, so long as they understand that the oath given is for ALL the jurats included in their loan package.

Hugh said it best with his example. Once someone is sworn in, that's it. Same principle is applied when we give BO these oaths.

Again I agree with Hugh, James and the others.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/13/11 3:26pm
Msg #406487

Re: Linda, how is it not true again?....he said

"Agree period, I mean think about it. It's either going to be all yes or all no"

That's what I feel is not true. I wasn't talking about giving one oath or multiple oaths. But all statements in all docs are not necessarily all yes or all no - that blanket assumption is not true.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/13/11 3:35pm
Msg #406490

then you should share YOUR experience where

such is not the case. The earth is not FLAT.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/13/11 3:42pm
Msg #406492

James? I don't know what your problem is...there isn't

experience to share - it's common sense - all documents requiring jurats contain different statements - all statements are not necessarily true throughout - that's why the signer needs to know what the document contains before they can swear to it and not just say up front "okay, I swear it's all true now where do I sign"

I'm not saying do a formal oath swearing on each document...but confirming that they looked it over and all the statements are true each time doesn't take long and certainly doesn't hurt.

Now relax big guy...I'm not arguing with you.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/13/11 3:49pm
Msg #406495

That's funny, I've been retired 14 years, I know how to

relax!

Reply by HisHughness on 12/13/11 4:13pm
Msg #406499

Unfortunately, James's wife hasn't been able to relax...

...for 14 years.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/13/11 4:36pm
Msg #406508

quite the contrary, she's a middle school teacher who

enjoys all her kids (as she says) and when she comes home, dinner is always ready. Ice cold red stripe in the fridge and the best part, when she get's home I'm usually gone.......to a signing!

Reply by NJDiva on 12/14/11 11:18am
Msg #406584

I loved what Les said one time...not verbatim but he said...

once he gives them their oath, he ends with "consider yourself under oath."

Geesh, it's long enough giving a brief summary of what the document is. If the jurat's had to be prefaced with an oath every time...ugh...

Reply by NJDiva on 12/14/11 11:21am
Msg #406585

oooops...that's not what Les said...he said...

"Consider yourself sworn in." I hope that was right!

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/13/11 1:45pm
Msg #406472

In Calif...And true I agree with the others

and true EVERYONE I have EVER done has either been ALL YES or all no. We are taking about me, my experience!

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/13/11 1:52pm
Msg #406473

YOUR experience may be different, I'm ok with that! n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/13/11 4:04pm
Msg #406497

Re: YOUR experience may be different, I'm ok with that!

My experience has been different. Examples that come to mind are the various versions of Name Affidavits. Occasionally we find something that needs to be corrected. Another example is the occasional Occupancy Aff that states they are owner occupants when they're not.

I used to set aside all the jurats until the end, then review them before administering the oath. Cumbersome and not really the best approach. From comments of others here in the past, I decided to administer the oath one time (if there are any jurats in the package), and I advise them that each time we come across one with a jurat that this document I'm handing them requires they sign under oath, which they've already taken.

I like Hugh's technique, though, and I might consider switching to that all-purpose approach at the very beginning in future. Thanks for sharing, Hugh! (I currently do something similar for Ack's.)

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/13/11 11:09am
Msg #406448

Not that there is anything wrong with what you are doing

Hugh - I just prefer to do each oath separately.

Reply by NJDiva on 12/14/11 11:29am
Msg #406587

Not that there is anything wrong with what you are doing

"Hugh - I just prefer to do each oath separately."

tee hee...of course you do Rob, because this way you do everything perfectly and can instruct others on what they are doing right or wrong, what the "law" is and shame them for being so ignorant...

Ooopsie, did I say that? I still love ya Robert! You are very knowledgeable and absolutely share good stuff. It's just that there are times when the self righteousness and know-it-all syndrome you suffer from (unbeknownst to you???) is very disconcerting at times. But I missed you when you were off line a few weeks back!

LOL...again, just sayin...

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/13/11 12:21pm
Msg #406458

Agree with Hugh on this...and I'm going to borrow...thx! n/m

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 12/13/11 1:25pm
Msg #406469

Me too. Thanks Hugh! n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/13/11 12:25pm
Msg #406461

Re: This is preposterous

Heh, I answered before I read Hugh's response. He's absolutely correct.

IMO, issuing an oath for each and every document is like a witness in court being sworn in for every single question asked of them. It's a silly waste of time.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 12/13/11 3:05pm
Msg #406484

Partly agree with Hugh.

Many document just say "sworn (or affirmed) before me..." and leave the exact wording of the oath to the notary. So I would use something essentially the same as Hugh's oath/affirmation, and use one administration for all the documents. But if a document has specific wording (especially a promise to do something in the future) I would administer that oath separately. Also an acknowledgement is different than an oath, so I would take one acknowledgement for all the documents, but that would be outside of the oath. Finally, it is neither legally necessary nor always desirable for a person to sign with his/her usual and customary signature (although the other party/parties might decline to do business if they don't like the signature).

Reply by Priscilla Witman on 12/13/11 10:11am
Msg #406440

I also administer it for each jurat...

...and let fussy signers know that it is a crime not to. Most signers will let it go at that time. Usually signers don't complain. Sometimes I get the ones who roll their eyes every time. I just let it roll off my back, pretend not to notice. They won't be the ones before the SOS or a judge if it comes down to it and a document is called into question, but I will. I won't let anyone put me in that spot no matter how much they complain.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/13/11 12:23pm
Msg #406459

Re: I also administer it for each jurat...

Thing is, it's NOT a crime to not issue an oath for each and every document *IF* you issue a more blanket oath at the beginning that covers all of the documents. As strict as CA is with this, we actually have a lot of leeway when it comes to oaths. There is no requirement that an oath be issued before each and every jurat. We are only certifying that we administered that oath, and since there is no prescribed wording for that oath, we are more than capable of issuing a oath to cover multiple documents.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 12/13/11 10:29am
Msg #406444

I give the oath prior to notarizing each Jurat.... n/m

Reply by garland/CA on 12/13/11 11:32am
Msg #406450

Prefer to do it for each document requiring it

It doesn't take long to ask if they solemnly swear that the contents on the document they are signing are true to the best of their knowledge.

It is a personal preference either way

Reply by SharonMN on 12/13/11 12:13pm
Msg #406456

Re: Prefer to do it for each document requiring it

I like the signer to know which statements they are swearing to. I will normally give the oath several times during a signing, but if there are 5 title affidavits in a row, I'll cover those all with one oath.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 12/13/11 11:32am
Msg #406451

Once is enuff

This is yet one more example of notaries going needlessly overboard at the borrower's expense, IMHO. As His Hughness pointed out, we do simple real estate deals; this is not the Ten Commandments. If the U.S court system sees fit to administer the oath one time for all subsequent testimony (even if administered days/weeks earlier) why would a simple notary need to administer an oath for each individual jurat? No wonder borrowers are rolling their eyes.

I think it is unreasonable to make borrowers promise to tell the truth each and every time a jurat appears. It certainly implies that their word cannot be trusted: "Just cos you promised to tell the truth earlier doesn't mean you're not lying now." Yikes! These borrowers just want their loan - they don't want to be administered truth serum at every turn. At least I would not want to be subjected to endless oath-giving just to get a refi....

As for me, I tell borrowers this is the first of several documents in their loan pkg that require an oath, making clear that the oath covers that and all future jurats. When I get to the next jurat I call their attention to the type of doc and remind them they're still under oath But that's just me ..... so if the rest of you want to administer oaths upon oaths, then you can and will do it your way, too.

The important thing is to administer an oath IF there are jurats in the loan pkg. I think we know plenty of notaries don't.

Reply by azsigning on 12/13/11 12:04pm
Msg #406455

According to the NNA...

I checked with the NNA about this subject and they had an interesting answer. You/We can administer the oath ONCE if our language includes the names of the jurat documents they are swearing to. For instance 'do you swear or affirm that the contents of these documents are true and correct, Affidavit of Occupancy, Right to Cancel Affidavit,…' etc. Using this language negates the 'per document' oath requirement.

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 12/13/11 12:24pm
Msg #406460

Re: According to the NNA...

....curious, I would've then asked, if the nsa had to name ALL of the documents that the signer would be swearing or affirming to, or could they include a few titles, and throw in there, "etc"....?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/13/11 12:16pm
Msg #406457

Once, with reminders...

When I'm handling multiple jurats, I do a single oath at the beginning. In CA, there is no prescribed wording for the oath, so I simply make sure that the oath covers ALL of the documents they're handling that day rather than any specific one. I do not name them in the oath, but I refer to them in general. When we come to one, I simply say, "This is one of the documents covered under your sworn statement..." and I remind them to review the information for accuracy. It's much more natural, professional and respectful of their time.

Think of it as one would in court. Thy are sworn in once. When returning from a break or on another day, they aren't sworn in again... but simply reminded that they remain under oath.

In CA, we can handle this as we wish... so long as we express to them that they are under oath and that they communicate their affirmation/oath. They do no even have to raise their hand. I don't ask people to raise their hands. I just let them know that they are under oath, just as if they are in court and ask for their response.

Issuing the oath for each and every jurat at the same appointment is complete overkill, IMO. At least, for CA anyway... I can't speak to other states.

Reply by azsigning on 12/13/11 12:27pm
Msg #406462

Re: Once, with reminders...

Arizona does have specific wording - I shot a quick email off to the SOS's office to get clarification. It seems ludicrous to say the oath for each document even though that was what I was doing - it's what led to my asking the question. This forum is a good tool and I appreciate the opportunity to kick these things around. Thanks t everone that responded - Happy Holidays

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/13/11 4:32pm
Msg #406504

Thank YOU for getting the conversation started! n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/13/11 12:36pm
Msg #406463

Food for thought about issuing one blanket oath

Yes they may agree that everything is true - but in the case of a loan signing, do you let the signers review the affidavits before they sign? I hope so - because one statement contained in ONE document that they've sworn to that's not true can come back later and bite everyone in the butt.

I swear I'm one and the same person as so-and-so; but at the owners' affidavit, suppose I swear that there are no liens or encumbrances on the property and I've not been advised of any pending assessments? When, in fact, I'm sitting there holding a letter from the county - or I have a tenant in the basement.

I don't "swear them in" for each doc, but I DO confirm each time - "all of these statements are true and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief?"...

JMO

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/13/11 12:39pm
Msg #406464

Re: Food for thought about issuing one blanket oath

I agree with this... that's why when we come to one of the jurat(ed?) documents, I always pause and remind them that one is covered by their oath and ask them to verify the information before we continue.

This works best for me and I've found covers the requirements without burdening the signers needlessly.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 12/13/11 1:40pm
Msg #406471

This came up a long time ago and I can't find the post

but I think it was by Sue in PA. Remember her? I'll keep looking

Reply by garland/CA on 12/13/11 3:04pm
Msg #406482

Agree here...doesn't take long to do this for each document

To say "do you solemnly swear that the contents of this document are true to the best of your knowledge" doesn't take long. It is a personal preference, but I don't think it is overkill.

It seems awkward to ask people to swear to contents they haven't seen yet, so I prefer to do it with each document. It literally takes no longer than the time they take to skim the document before signing.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/13/11 4:14pm
Msg #406500

Re: Agree here...doesn't take long to do this for each document

You have a point. I felt the same way, so in my blanket oath I ask them if they agree to only sign the documents that I advise require an oath if the contents are true and correct to the best of their knowledge. Like Marian, I let them know as I hand them the docs with jurats and give them time to look them over, if they want.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/13/11 4:18pm
Msg #406501

My last word on the subject

Swearing a signer and informing a signer of the contents of the document he/she is signing are two different functions. You can do either without doing the other, or you can do both. I do not see that it is necessary to caution a signer that he/she is under oath for each document carrying a jurat. I do ask them if the averments in the document are correct. That's very much a part of our job, both as notaries and as signing agents.

Reply by azsigning on 12/13/11 5:46pm
Msg #406524

AZ SOS's office wants the oath administered before each doc

I sent an email to the Arizona Sec of States office asking them the question and this is the reply I received; 'It should be done for each document that is signed.'
Of course that's just Arizona -

Reply by bagger on 12/13/11 2:40pm
Msg #406478

I swear them in once ....
Then when I get to a doc, say the borrowers aff, I say " by signing this you swear that 1- you own the property, 2 - there are no unknown spousal rights, yadda yadda yadda.

Reply by Jillian Hinrichs on 12/13/11 4:55pm
Msg #406514

Hugh is correct, not that that is a surprise! I actually give them a piece of paper explaining the acknowledgement and jurat when I come across the first one of them, so that they understand the difference and that once the first jurat appears I will be administering an oath and then when each new jurat appears I will remind them that they are under oath and that they need to carefully review the document to make sure it is correct before signing it, since the oath includes "the information contained within the document is true to the best of your knowledge and belief".

They seem to like it the way I do it. I see no reason to administer an oath more than once when the courts don't do so.

As previously stated, many notaries don't even do this and also don't do anything more than hand the borrowers the pages that need a signature, date and/or initials, and point to where they are to sign, then on to the next one. Unfortunately those are also the ones who keep the bad signing companies with low rates in business since they can get thru a signing in about half an hour so the pay isn't as bad for them!

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/13/11 7:16pm
Msg #406540

Food for Thought

Great discussion! I only administer the oath once. I agree with Hughness and like the example he provided.

In my experience, none of the critical docs have jurats so maybe this discussion gives way to a NEW stacking order, which can be the critical docs (in whatever order you choose) THEN under that, ALL the jurats. Once those docs are out of the way, then the jurats can be tackled (oath given), then the rest of the legals, escrow, and junk docs can be signed.

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 12/13/11 9:17pm
Msg #406556

Re: Food for Thought

I administer the oath only once!

Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/14/11 1:27am
Msg #406562

What is the law in each state on the subject of this

particularly applied (to our work) question of the form of Oath Taking?

Notaries Public are commissioned by each state to administer and take oaths. Baliffs have that same authority.

This question seems to turn on whether a Baliff's "Once, On The Record. Reminders ok" of courts nationally/internationally (there is virtually no court where a witness's oath is taken prior to every appearance or question on the stand); and a Notary Public's "Once, On The Record. Reminders ok" for a legal transaction of "multiple apppearances/documents," operate under the same umbrella of the power of an Oath.

The language sounds identical to me.

Reply by ikando on 12/14/11 3:48pm
Msg #406624

Re: What is the law in each state on the subject of this

I usually have them look at the HUD while I'm filling out my book. When that's done and signed, when I get to the first doc in the stack that has a jurat, I do a blanket oath and affirmation, commenting that there are several documents in the stack which will require their oath/affirmation. They get a copy of all the docs, so if they don't agree with one they've sworn to, in my opinion it is their responsibility to protest it. I've prepared them by letting them know that they are under oath before they sign anything.