Posted by LKT/CA on 12/12/11 6:30pm
Msg #406379

Witnessing & Notarizing Same Doc

Called the SOS - Notary Public Division. Agent put me on hold to ask the supervisor my question and this is supervisor's response (as told by the agent): "Nothing in the CA notary law prohibits a notary from signing as a witness and notarizing the principal's signature on the same document, BUT, the SOS strongly advises against it. "

So I ask: "If I were to sign as a witness and notarize on the same doc, could I get in trouble?"

Agent: As I said, the rules don't say you can't do it, but we advise against it. So as far as getting in trouble for it, I don't know, can't say you will or won't. The chips will fall where they may.

CA SOS (916) 653-3595
Supervisor: Knu Lang

Reply by NJDiva on 12/12/11 6:41pm
Msg #406381

Nine & 1/2 out of ten mortgages I notarize I also serve

as the witness. I suppose you all in CA would call them Deeds. Don't you all sign as witnesses and notarize the documents as well?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 12/12/11 7:00pm
Msg #406383

Chery, see Msg #406235 and ensuing thread... n/m

Reply by NJDiva on 12/12/11 7:06pm
Msg #406384

Yeah, thanks Lin, I was following it, but I'm still

perplexed as to why all of a sudden it's such a big deal (love ya Lisa, but confused nonetheless.)

Am I misunderstanding the capacity of signing/witnessing/notarizing the document? Is a mortgage/deed an example of that particular issue here?

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/12/11 7:10pm
Msg #406386

Cheryl, check your P/M n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 12/13/11 1:56pm
Msg #406474

Re: Nine & 1/2 out of ten mortgages I notarize I also serve

Recordable documents don't have to be witnessed in CA. Notarization is sufficient.

Reply by Buddy Young on 12/12/11 7:06pm
Msg #406385

You can't get into trouble for witnessing and noarizing because there is nothing in the handbook that says it's unlawful.

However because of your call i'm sure there will be an undate to the handbook and they will clerify it for you.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/12/11 7:20pm
Msg #406388

<<<You can't get into trouble for witnessing and noarizing because there is nothing in the handbook that says it's unlawful.>>>

That's not what the agent said. The agent said he "can't say I will or won't" get in trouble - the chips will fall where they may. When someone tells me something isn't prohibited BUT we advise against it - that doesn't sound like an endorsement to me. Each notary must decide for themselves how they will proceed on this issue, since it's their commission. And as the agent said, "Let the chips fall where they may."

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/12/11 7:17pm
Msg #406387

Typical response of CA SOS! I am surprised they didn't advise you to call an attorney.

Reply by Julie/MI on 12/12/11 7:22pm
Msg #406389

Need to inquire to the proper jurisdiction

Sos only cares about the notary part.

If it's a recording question and can the notary also serve as a witness, would fall under your state's recording laws, which the SOS, I'm assuming has not part of.

If you are dealing with Wills or trusts or Poa's then that's a question for your probate court division.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/12/11 7:31pm
Msg #406390

Re: Need to inquire to the proper jurisdiction

The notary part is the sum total of the issue in the other thread. The doc in question from the other thread was a Surety Bond.

Reply by Notarysigner on 12/12/11 7:57pm
Msg #406394

simply put..only the person who died would object!

Thar would be the answer!

Reply by HisHughness on 12/12/11 9:12pm
Msg #406404

Lisa, in neither of the threads on this issue...

...have you stated what possible negative consequences could flow from notarizing and witnessing a document. And, I gather from your account of the conversation with the SOS, neither did the SOS staffer offer any underlying reason for erecting an obstacle to the easy and efficient execution of a notarized document. It seems to me that both of you have just leapt to a conclusion and proceeded on that basis without ever examining WHY a notary acting in such a dual role would be inadvisable.

Can you explain what reasonable negative consequences you think might result?

Reply by Buddy Young on 12/12/11 11:11pm
Msg #406408

Re: Lisa, you wouldn't happen to be blond would you? n/m

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/13/11 8:57am
Msg #406425

Re: Lisa, you wouldn't happen to be blond would you?

Don't like the message so try and attack the messenger - very typical to just blow hot air when you have nothing constructive to say. Next attack (hot air) will highlight misspellings and punctuation, also typical when one has no point and nothing constructive to write about the ISSUE, which most fail to stick to. CASE CLOSED!!

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 12/12/11 9:36pm
Msg #406405

You ask the SOS the same question 3 days in a row...you will get three people with three different answers. They are about as helpful and willing to address issues as the NNA. There is no issue I can see, when being a witness is a hinderance. YOU ARE NOT NAMED AS A PRINCIPAL OR PARTY TO THE TRANSACTION...so what is the real concern? As Hugh said, what do you think might be wrong with being a witness?

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/13/11 6:41am
Msg #406413

<<<You ask the SOS the same question 3 days in a row...you will get three people with three different answers.>>>

That's correct, and I asked the agent if I could get his answer in writing for the very reason you mentioned and he gave me the supervisor's name. And I included his/her name in the post so anyone who cares to hear it from the SOS directly can call and ask for the supervisor by name.

At this point, the SOS supervisor said it is not prohibited but advised against it. Not an endorsement IMO, but if YOU believe that's the green light to do that, then go right ahead. Again, we will each answer for our own actions and we are each responsible for our own commission, therefore, proceed as YOU see fit and, as the agent said, "Let the chips fall where they may."

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/13/11 7:01am
Msg #406415

"Let the chips fall where they may." Is this your stupid

phrase of the day? You've only said it 100 times in this thread...

Lisa, the SOS is straight up WRONG on this one. There is absolutely NO reason why you can not act as a witness when the laws don't prohibit it. The statutes themselves have the last say-so. I don't care what the SOS says - using common sense, if it isn't prohibited by statute and falls within the general purvue of notaries all over the country, it is probably OK.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/13/11 7:02am
Msg #406416

P.S. I would be very upset if I was a paying customer and

you refused to witness a document as a courtesy... for no reason.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/13/11 8:28am
Msg #406420

Re: P.S. I would be very upset if I was a paying customer and

The SOS has given their say on the issue - it is not prohibited but not advised to do either. If u have a problem with THEIR answer, that's between u and THEM. I gave the supervisor's name - argue it out with the SUPERVISOR. CASE CLOSED !!

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/13/11 8:18am
Msg #406419

Re: "Let the chips fall where they may." Is this your stupid

Can u read, Robert? Are u not so stupid as that u can't read that the phrase is from the SOS agent? Okay, Florida notary who knows it all, why don't U tell the CALIFORIA SOS they're wrong. Secondly, the isn't witnessing, but witnessing AND notarizing the SAME doc. First learn to read, then learn to comprehend before u write to me.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/13/11 8:43am
Msg #406422

I am saying that the California SOS is wrong, and if I feel

like calling them up and saying so, I will. I can say whatever I want to say and type what every I want to type and if you don't like it, well that's just TOO BAD.

Reply by lyndie on 12/13/11 10:26am
Msg #406442

Re: I am saying that the California SOS is wrong, and if I feel

I was the one asking about being a witness in a surety bond. I also called the Calif SOS Monday morning, and was told by one of the staff that " it is probably not advised, but in this case seek the advice of an attorney". The handbook rules are vague and do not directly address this issue. Unfortunately, I was notarizing on a Saturday morning and we could not reach the document custodians for further clarification.
I know that many times in a loan doc signing, there is a page that prompts the notary to sign as a witness, and understand that the way it is done is not as a Notary Public but as Your Name, Loan Signing Agent.
Would it then depend on the document and what you are really being a witness to?
It seems to me that no one has gotten in trouble over this.....yet.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 12/13/11 11:14am
Msg #406449

Common sense approach

California notaries love to throw around the idea that "we notarize SIGNATURES! not DOCUMENTS!"

OK, then. If you are only concerned with the signature, what difference does it make WHO signs as witnesses as long as you are not notarizing the witness' signatures?

Signing as a witness and taking the acknowledgment of the grantor/principal are two very different things. Witnessing a person sign a document does not make you a party to the document, just like notarization does not make the notary a party to the document.

As long as you are not notarizing the signatures of the witnesses, there is no reason why you can not sign as both a witness and as a notary. You are playing two distinct roles - just like when you act as a Signing Agent and a Notary Public. Unless your laws specifically prohibit notaries from also signing as a witness, there is no reason to refuse.

Reply by SheilaSJCA on 12/13/11 3:51pm
Msg #406496

Why Lisa? Why do "they" advise against it? If you can answer

that maybe those of us who have been doing this for a long time will understand your concerns.

Reply by LKT/CA on 12/13/11 6:55pm
Msg #406537

Sent you a P/M, Sheila n/m

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 12/13/11 2:43pm
Msg #406479

I have signed as a witness on docs I was notarizing...

I notarized signatures on the doc I signed as a witness. No conflict of interest.
The witness sigs did not require notarization.
I'd do it again.
I feel there was no harm done.

Stephanie

Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/14/11 1:50am
Msg #406563

Agree. Two entirely different 'hats,' so to speak. n/m