Posted by FlaNotary2 on 12/21/11 3:51pm
Msg #407262

Re: "Blanket" oath for stack of documents in Florida

After our recent discussion about whether or not it is permissible to administer one "blanket" oath that covers all documents in a stack of documents, I submitted the question to the Governor's office who advised as follows:

************************************
Mr. Koehler,

Please know that our office can only refer you to the statutes within chapter 117, which is the Florida notary law; our office cannot interpret a statue or provide a legal opinion. Florida notary law does not specifically if an oath must be administered for each document; it simply isn’t addressed within chapter 117. Therefore, if you need an interpretation Florida statutes, you’ll need to direct your inquiry to an attorney or to the Attorney General’s Office for an opinion.

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Heather Slager
Notary Education Coordinator
Executive Office of the Governor

************************************

Based on these instructions I have forwarded the question to the Attorney General's office. Will be interesting to see what they come back and say.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/21/11 3:59pm
Msg #407263

Good Luck Robert...I got the same basic answer to my

question about webcam notarizations and whether the state had taken a stand on them. So I wrote to the AG's office - they told me they don't render legal opinions and they referred me back to the notary division.

I'd just play it safe...I'd go over each doc that needed a jurat when I got to it and confirm that all statements are true to the best of their knowledge and belief *after each one* - will also confirm individually that it's their free act and deed. No blanket anythings for me, especially the oaths....too much room for error there IMHO.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 12/21/11 4:16pm
Msg #407265

I , of course, do not have a dog in this fight, but I am

certain that if the AG's office agrees with you that an new oath is necessary for each document , then all Florida NSAs will thank you for making them do it your way in the future,
The Gov's office clearly does not think that it is important enough to want to require other Fl NPs to do it your way.
You are paid by the hour or by the notarization. Those that do loan signings are paid by the job, and may well have a dozen or more dox that require a jurat wtih , frequently, two or more parties signing the dox at the same time.
I'm sure that they, along with their signers will be grateful to you for making them spend the additonal time for an unnecessary act.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/21/11 4:33pm
Msg #407266

Doesn't take that long to say the words

One second to say "All these statements are true?"...they nod, say yes, they sign, I sign, I stamp...

As I said in that previous thread..I'm more comfortable that way, simply because every document contains different statements - they should swear to the truth of "the statements contained herein" as they pertain to each individual document.

JMO

Reply by Buddy Young on 12/21/11 4:43pm
Msg #407267

Re: Doesn't take that long to say the words

When I come to the second and succeeding jurats, I just say to the borowers " you are still under oath", is this information correct?

It only takes a few seconds.

Reply by jba/fl on 12/21/11 4:45pm
Msg #407269

sent you PM - read first! n/m

Reply by rengel/CA on 12/21/11 6:08pm
Msg #407283

Re: Doesn't take that long to say the words

I usually try to stay out of these types of threads, but here I go...

"One second to say "All these statements are true?"...they nod, say yes, they sign, I sign, I stamp..."

I'm sorry, but I don't see an oath or affirmation in the above statement. To me, that would be worse than a blanket oath or affirmation at the beginning of a signing.

My .02

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/21/11 6:14pm
Msg #407284

Usually say "You swear these statements are true"?

I shortened for the sake of argument....but they know they're swearing to the truth of the statements....

No, I do not administer a full formal oath every time.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 12/21/11 6:41pm
Msg #407286

Re: Doesn't take that long to say the words

"All these statements are true?"... is hardly an oath ... IMHO

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/21/11 6:44pm
Msg #407287

WE could go on here all night long...

I've clarified here and was clear in the other thread...

I'm done and will tuck my tail and hush.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/21/11 8:11pm
Msg #407302

My preference

"Do you swear that the information contained in this document is true and correct?" for every document. No raised right hand necessary.

Using a stopwatch, this took me about 3.444 seconds to say. And that is with my slow Floridian drawl. (It's the humidity I think).

I don't really care whether the signer is embarrassed or thinks it is silly or not. Oaths are intended to be formal... that is the point... to draw the signer's attention to the importance of the document.

Reply by jba/fl on 12/21/11 9:32pm
Msg #407308

Re: My preference

"to draw the signer's attention to the importance of the document."

No. Objection. It is not the importance of the document; it is the importance of the answer to the document's contents, the gravity of the utterance. (I swear that I am not playing games here.)

Reply by jba/fl on 12/21/11 4:43pm
Msg #407268

Bob - how wonderfully pragmatic of you to weigh in here

I say hi, show me your id's, give me the copies, look at Hud and ask: is the HUD ok; not a peek at anything else until I get these affidavits out of the way.

I cannot in good conscience tell you my exact verbiage here as we need to keep Robert from a heart attack, and not listen to Linda cluck, cluck as well, but I do the blanket thing, suffice to say. By your signature, you are swearing that, to the best of your knowledge and ability, the following statements are true and correct.....(then I glance at each aff. and read, asking them to agree as I am reading), then we sign, sign and stamp; next: sign, sign and stamp, until done. Then we can move on to all the other stuff. If something comes up mid-package, I remind them.

I do agree with you (or Hugh) that Robert should do a few loan signings just for the experience. Greater understanding would be his.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/21/11 4:50pm
Msg #407271

Well, see, I probably do something most NSA's don't do

when conducting a signing - NOW watch the veterans have a heart attack!!

For any document requiring a jurat, I go over each statement contained in the document with the signers. Once they put pen to paper they know what statements they're signing off on as true and correct.

Okay...CPR commences in 3...2...1

Reply by Larry/IL on 12/21/11 5:02pm
Msg #407273

One oath in a court of law.

If a court of law deems it sufficient to swear in a witness only one time, no matter how many times they come to the witness stand, I stick to the blanket thing, reminding the borrowers they are still under oath for each instance. Just like to run my business as efficiently as possible while still adhering to the law.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/21/11 5:26pm
Msg #407276

Consider this...one oath in court...but you hear the

question in advance.

How can one possibly swear to the truth of statements that they have not seen? - which would be the case in giving the oath in advance of signing a stack of documents, sight unseen.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/21/11 5:46pm
Msg #407279

Re: Consider this...one oath in court...but you hear the

You haven't been to many court cases, have you, Linda? The oath is administered before a single question is asked. Further, if an affidavit is not a truthful statement, the remedy is the same whether a blanket oath or an individual oath is administered: You don't sign the document, or you sign it only after it is amended to reflect the truth.

This whole discussion is a wonderful example of the notary intruding into what is a simple process to try to help someone get their business done.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/21/11 5:58pm
Msg #407281

I know court procedure Hugh...thanks anyway

My point being they can't say the statements are true til they see them, can they? If you can figure out how that's done, maybe you can enlighten us...I just don't see it.

I'll continue my current procedure...takes seconds and signers never mind it.

Reply by Larry/IL on 12/21/11 6:07pm
Msg #407282

Re: I know court procedure Hugh...thanks anyway

"Do you solemnly swear that any information you put into or sign for in the following affidavits will be true....blah, blah, blah should be sufficient enough to do the blanket thing. JMO

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/21/11 7:05pm
Msg #407292

I want to make it clear that I have never taken a side on

this issue... I prefer to administer an oath for each document. It takes less than 2 seconds and is much easier than coming up with some elaborate oath wording in an attempt to cut corners. As an educator, however, I do want to know whether or not this method is acceptable in Florida.

Yes, our goal is to serve the public, but we are offering a public service, and there are laws and procedures go with this. When you go to the DMV, you don't just demand the clerk to give you a driver license - you first have to meet their requirements; present proper identification, proof of residence, and take a driving test. I will serve the public to the extent that the law provides, but I am not going to take shortcuts to appease a client. When it comes to notarization, the key player is the notary. I am not going to downplay that role so that the client can feel like I work for them.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/21/11 8:09pm
Msg #407301

I’m going to say this as gently as possible.

Laws constantly need to be construed, interpreted or overturned. That’s what courts do. Individuals also constantly construe or interpret laws. When you ask a lawyer what the law is, and he knows you are going to act based on his advice, he will ALWAYS give you the most conservative, restrictive construction of the law. That covers his a$$ if you act beyond his construction. If, on the other hand, you want to know what you really can reasonably do, ask a lawyer, “What can I get away with?” Then, and only then, will he give you an interpretation of the law that is grounded in the real world.

We have had examples in the past few days of construing existing law, and construing what is reasonable to do in the absence of any statutory guidance.

In the first instance, Robert would have you believe that a correct interpretation – i.e., in his view the most restrictive interpretation -- of Florida law would require a notary to substitute a jurat if an affidavit ever has an acknowledgement. My view is that the Florida law requires that substitution only when the body of the affidavit specifically says it is sworn. Absent that wording, the framer of a document should be able to attach either a jurat or an acknowledgement at his discretion. To hold otherwise would be to require a framer to make someone swear to an averment, when that is not what he wishes to do.

The other instance is this thread, which is actually a continuation of an earlier thread. In this case, there actually is NO law requiring the administration of an oath for each individual affidavit. Robert says each affidavit requires an oath; I, and other righteous, right-minded, reality-based, thoughtful and thoroughly likable notaries say one oath at the outset of a signing is sufficient.

Note the common thread in both instances. Under Robert’s construction of (1) a law and (2) NO law, Robert has with that alone magnified and expanded his role in the execution of any document(s). Suddenly, the notary holds the keystone to a valid signing. The notary is the unique holder of esoteric knowledge, and has vastly expanded his role in the signing process. Lost in the shuffle is assisting the signer in getting his business done.

It goes beyond that, however, Let us always remember that Robert, as he so frequently reminds us, is an instructor for would-be notaries; he is the Keeper of the Flame. And simply by insisting that his acolytes follow HIS narrow interpretation of the law, the Flame he is passing on to them has become a Towering Inferno.

Nor is that the end of it. Robert is an aspiring lawyer, but at this stage of his young career he is far from achieving that goal. This gives him the opportunity to play lawyer without the license on the wall. It must be one enormous ego boost. My prediction is that when he does become a lawyer – and I have no doubt he will – one of two things is going to happen. Either he is going to learn to give his clients advice on how to achieve their goals within the law, or he is going to go back to being a paralegal.

Watch Robert’s post when something like this arises. They will always be from the perspective of “I know what the law is, and the law is this.” They will never ever be from the perspective of “What can I do within a reasonable construction of the law?” As I, and others have noted, he would be well-served to do a couple dozen real estate closings. Imposing your opinionated fiats upon a signer who has only one document to execute is far different from demanding the same from two signers who have 160 pages to plow through.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/21/11 8:27pm
Msg #407305

I am going to respond to your post by saying

Ppffffffft. Now that this is out of my system, here goes:

1. Hugh says: >>>My view is that the Florida law requires that substitution only when the body of the affidavit specifically says it is sworn<<<

I would agree with you, Hugh. Just because a document is labeled "affidavit" does not mean that it is an affidavit. Captions, after all, are just captions. That said, I have never come across a document entitled "Affidavit" that did not have some reference to the instrument being sworn - and if there is such a reference, s. 117.03, Fla. Stat., requires that the certificate be a jurat. I am pretty sure all of us Florida notaries on this board share this opinion. No argument here.

2. Hugh says: >>>Note the common thread in both instances. Under Robert’s construction of (1) a law and (2) NO law, Robert has with that alone magnified and expanded his role in the execution of any document(s). Suddenly, the notary holds the keystone to a valid signing. The notary is the unique holder of esoteric knowledge, and has vastly expanded his role in the signing process. Lost in the shuffle is assisting the signer in getting his business done.<<<

I addressed this in another thread but I will mention it again: yes, we offer a public service, but when a member of the public requires a notarial service they have to follow the established laws and procedures, as with receiving any public service. I believe in a conservative interpretation of notarial law. I do not believe in exercising any discretion with notary law when the law is clearly designed to have a notary act in a particular fashion.

Without a notary, there can be no notarization. Without no notarization, there can be no affidavit, no deed, no mortgage. Do you agree that this gives notaries a vital role in the execution of certain documents?

3. Hugh says: >>>Either he is going to learn to give his clients advice on how to achieve their goals within the law, or he is going to go back to being a paralegal.<<<

As a paralegal, I handle family law and probate matters. Notarial law is not something that is practiced in the firm where I work. After becoming an attorney I intend to continue family and probate practice. Your attempt at a passive-aggressive insult is actually completely nonapplicable here. I am not going to tell a client how much he can "get away with". I believe in conservative interpretation of the law. In Florida, if a law is meant to be construed liberally, the statute will so state.

4. Hugh says: >>>It goes beyond that, however, Let us always remember that Robert, as he so frequently reminds us, is an instructor for would-be notaries; he is the Keeper of the Flame. And simply by insisting that his acolytes follow HIS narrow interpretation of the law, the Flame he is passing on to them has become a Towering Inferno.<<<

You're right. I have made an interpretation of notary law. That interpretation has been ratified by the Governor's office. The Governor's office has given me the authority to pass on this interpretation to students. Again, I don't understand your attempt at an insult.

5. Hugh says: >>>As I, and others have noted, he would be well-served to do a couple dozen real estate closings.<<<

I did not know that it takes a familiarity with a particular genre of documents to be a notary public. This IS a forum for professional NOTARIES. Amongst those professional notaries, we have some signing agents, some non-signing agents. Your advice to do a couple dozen real estate closings would be like my advising you to do a couple dozen paternity packets. I go through a paternity packet like you might go through a loan closing. I have done several loan closings, and they are nothing special. But, as I have mentioned numerous times, I do not act as a traditional "signing agent". No edocs, no printing, no dealing with scum-sucking signing services or title companies.

I don't disagree with you about "blanket oaths". I would, however, like to find out if such a practice is authorized in Florida. I don't see why that is such a problem with you, Hugh.

Reply by jba/fl on 12/21/11 9:49pm
Msg #407312

Robert: I am going to respond to your post by saying I think

that Hugh was being kind and gentle. Heavens, you and I have both been on the end of his not so gentle commentary so I know what could be expected as I believe you would know as well.

Beyond the general comment, I would like to address #5, your last statement, paragraph 1: "No edocs, no printing, no dealing with scum-sucking signing services or title companies. " I think you should have omitted 'scum-sucking' as that is not the common descriptor one would normally apply. Having worked in attorney's offices, very prestigious ones, and friends who work for high profile ones as well: no matter which kind, there are going to be so-called 'scum-sucking' clients you will eventually be exposed to. When that day comes, you will have to deal with it on a personal basis, not from your lofty ideal(s). And you will have to give them your best, like it or not.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/21/11 7:01pm
Msg #407291

How ridiculous.

So, it is better for us to just be "in the dark" and do something incorrectly than to ask the proper authority to find out how we are supposed to do things?

Reply by NJDiva on 12/21/11 8:50pm
Msg #407307

"...to find out how we are supposed to do things?"

Come on Rob, we all know what you really want is to say "Nanner, nanner nah nah! I was right, I was right! Seee?? You were wrong. Yup, I'm right again."

Ugh, pflt, I'm gagging! Stop it already!

Reply by Paul2_FL on 12/22/11 11:57pm
Msg #407404

Re: "Blanket" oath for stack of documents in Florida

It's been quite a while since I posted in this forum but this topic caught my eye and I felt compelled to put my 2 cents in.
Questioning whether or not a blanket oath is permissible I believe was put forth some years ago on this forum and addressed by PAW. I don't recall the message # or title of the topic but I do know that I personally spoke with Paul on this very subject when I first got into this business and he told me that a blanket oath would suffice. He stated this because he looked into it (like Robert) and there was nothing in the Florida Statues to say you couldn't do it. However, it doesn't hurt to check every once in a while to verify that this is still the case. From the answer Robert received apparently nothing has changed. This then lead me to question why it is important to have the AG come back with an opinion. Let's assume that the AG responds to Robert stating that in his/her opinion an oath needs to be administered each time. What does that really mean? Robert will post the AG's response here on NotRot and maybe some other forums and "maybe" some notaries will take heed. However, in order for it to become something everyone needs to abide by, the Florida Statutes would have to be changed making the 'blanket' oath taking unlawful.
Now here's the kicker to even this. 80% of the times when I ask the client(s) to take an oath they look at me like I have two heads. I constantly hear "nobody has asked us to do that before".
Secondly, I've been in Banks and other places such as UPS stores and Postal Stores where they perform notarizations and have yet to hear them administer an oath. They ID the person and stamp.
Thirdly, I administer an oath because it's my duty to do so but who's to say I did? Unlike a courtroom procedure there is no recording. For that matter, who's to say that any of us are administering an oath when required to do so? It's really just our conscience and us.