Posted by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 1:56pm
Msg #371909

Lawyers think they know everything....

I just got a call from an attorney who prepared a POA that I notarized not long ago. Now, this is specific to CA law....

She wrote in the certificate that my title was, "Notary Public for and in the State of California," which is not really acceptable... I've been told several times that the title after our name should simply read "Notary Public" since that is the title bestowed to us on our commissions.

On this POA, I lined through the extraneous words. No big deal, I thought.

This attorney is upset because the bank rejected the document because I "made corrections to the document."

I tried to explain that the notarial certificate is not part of the document, and the bank's legal department has no say in how I complete that certificate.

Now they want me to go back and get this done again... the attorney did correct the wording after I explained the issue. Thing is, this guy is elderly, in skilled nursing and has no ID, so he needs CWs. I've notarized for him many times, and he's a really sweet man, totally alert and lucid, just ill. I'm happy to go back, for free even, to do this for him... but it ticks me off.

The AIF thinks I should go to the bank with her and explain the issue, try to convince them. Apparently their legal department is adamant that I'm the screw-up and everyone is mad at me.

Right now I've got about 4 lawyers all telling me I'm wrong...and I'm beginning to wonder.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/8/11 2:25pm
Msg #371910

Who has told you "several times that the title after our name should simply read "Notary Public" since that is the title bestowed to us on our commissions."....are you not a Notary Public for the State of California?

Maybe they're not so much telling you you're wrong, but rather that the extra wording didn't invalidate your certificate so you could have left it as is I see that wording all the time in closing packages, especially the A/K/A Statement - I just fill in the banks - no big deal to me. I really don't see an issue with the extra wording.

At least the attorney listened to you and changed the cert - maybe the AIF is right and you SHOULD go to the bank and speak with them - the AIF sounds like they're on your side...

MHO

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 2:46pm
Msg #371914

The AIF and the Attorney are actually different people. The AIF is on my side.

I was told by the Sec of State that our title is "Notary Public" as it is listed on our commissions. Actually, it reads, "Notary Public of the State of California" but the Big bold words say Notary Public.

I know it's a technical issue... and I don't personally see the problem with leaving the extra words... that's just what I've been told, and CA notarial wording is statuary so there's nothing we can really do about it. This one said "in and of the State of California" --- it all means the same, it's just extraneous and we ARE allowed to line through irrelevant words (such as he/she/they) on the certificate.

My point, really, is that the bank shouldn't be rejecting the document because I lined through words on MY notarial certificate to make it compliant with California law.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 2:51pm
Msg #371916

Let me add, if it had just read "Notary Public of the State of California" I would have left it alone... but this said "in and of..." which isn't wording on our commission, which is why I lined through it. I know nitpicky...really nitpicky... but so is CA notary law regarding wording, so that's not a line I want to cross.

All the same, I'm taking the revised document to the client this afternoon and we're doing it again. It's not his fault... not my fault... just the stupid bank and their legal department that thinks they know everything.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 2/8/11 4:08pm
Msg #371941

"and CA notarial wording is statuary"

Does that mean it's carved in stone? Sorry, couldn't resists...

I thought it was the wording of the notarial certificate itself that is defined by the statute? It seems reasonable to me that adding "of and for the State of California" to your title wouldn't make a difference - what matters is the statement you are making ABOVE the signature line. Or is the actual statute THAT specific as to wording?

Reply by James Dawson on 2/8/11 2:41pm
Msg #371911

I'd had an attorney complete an ACK similar and so as not to cause any ill will I will tell her the way it should be done "the next time"! She usually accommodates and nobody has any hard feelings.

A Lot of banks have there "own" forms and as long as it covers the basics I'm alright with it. When I'm contracted to do a POA I often remind the client of that ( unacceptable forms). I extend the rule, "we cannot tell the person which form to use i.e. ACK vs Jurat" to include this.

I wouldn't go to the bank to explain, but I would show the client what/where it says that in the California notary handbook.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 2/8/11 2:55pm
Msg #371917

I'm with you on this, Marian

A few years ago, we had some wiggle room on the ACK, but the CA legislature ended that. The SOS Notary Handbook clearly says: "The Certificate of Acknowledgment must be in the form set forth in Civil Code Section 1189." Not in the form the bank wants it, not in the form attorneys want it, not in any other form. And "in and for the state California" is not part of it. I agree with JD - just show them the Code.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 3:02pm
Msg #371920

Re: I'm with you on this, Marian

THanks... that's what I'm going to do. Or at least... I'm leaving a copy with the AIF so she can give it to the bank, along with a photocopy of my commission showing my title. This is a really nice man that I've met quite a few times now and I'm doing this gratis. It's no big deal to do another one... I just think it's stupid that the bank would reject it because I lined through and corrected *my* title on *my* certificate.

The attorney who drew it up wasn't to happy with me when I explained it. She was like, "I don't really care about notary law, just get this fixed that way you want it with no cross outs."

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 2/8/11 2:45pm
Msg #371913

stupid question, but have you called the CA SOS office, though I'm sure you have?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 2:47pm
Msg #371915

Yup... I've called on this before... they told me it should read "[Name of Notary], Notary Public"

Reply by Kim_CA on 2/8/11 3:00pm
Msg #371919

Marian you are not wrong. I too have lined through the pre-printed wording "for and in the State of California" that sometimes shows up on documents. None of those documents have been rejected because of it. Going to the bank and explaining the issue could be a win-win situation for all.

Reply by SharonH/OH on 2/8/11 3:07pm
Msg #371921

(Sigh) I'm so glad I don't live in CA (nm) n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 3:25pm
Msg #371926

Re: (Sigh) I'm so glad I don't live in CA (nm)

It's not even California... this is a stupid bank's legal department being completely anal retentive and ridiculous. The AIF is completely on my side on this one... she's been trying to reason with them all day long.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/8/11 3:30pm
Msg #371928

Re: (Sigh) I'm so glad I don't live in CA (nm)

I can sympathize with you Marian - I do safe deposit box inventories here and always supply my own certs (FL compliant)...

Last time I showed up the manager hands me a form and says "the paralegal in our legal department drew this up and they want this form used" - well, it had me notarizing my own signature. After explaining to the manager what was wrong with it, I signed their form (no seal) and provided a correct FL form for the SD box....then I gave her an ack and a jurat, marked "sample" across both and told her to show the paralegal these samples and if the legal department was going to provide forms for me they'd have to refer to these for Florida compliant wording...

Yeesh...I sympathize.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 2/8/11 3:07pm
Msg #371922

P.S.

What about issuing a loose leaf with no corrections, if that's the bank's big bugga boo? Where's the bank? Where's the ack? Maybe you can just do a whole new ack and attach it ...?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 3:18pm
Msg #371923

Re: P.S.

It's US Bank, and it's their legal department, in California. They are a bunch a idiots, trust me. They absolutely refuse to take a POA with ANY cross outs on it anywhere or loose sheets. It's like talking to a crumbling brick wall.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 2/8/11 3:28pm
Msg #371927

Yikes!

Yes, my experience too with US Bank is that they're idiots. In any case, now I'm confused. If you're dealing with an AIF, what are the 2 CWs for? At this point, tho, can you just tell them to all go to heck - or is this attorney a good source of jobs for you? You've explained the law - you can't backtrack. Just tell them to send another notary - one who will play ball with them....

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/8/11 3:34pm
Msg #371931

Goldgirl...it's the POA that she notarized... n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 3:56pm
Msg #371938

Re: Yikes!

There are several parties here:

The man's attorney -- who wrote up the original paperwork with the wrong wording. She's upset with me because she doesn't understand why "in and for the State of California" isn't part of my title. She sent me a new file with that part omitted. I've printed them and we are going to re-sign the POA in about an hour.

The AIF (NOT the attorney), a family friend. She's the one getting grief from the bank. She's completely on my side and thinks the whole thing is ridiculous.

The bank and their legal department. Ridiculous morons who refuse to talk to me except to say that I invalidated the POA by altering the document. Yeah... okay.

The added issue is that fact that this man doesn't have current ID, so every time I notarize for him we have to get CW's. He's on the waiting list to get a in-home visit from the DMV, but it's taking forever... and he's ill and may not have a lot of time left.

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/8/11 3:33pm
Msg #371930

If they fix the words to be agreeable with you

I would say go back and ask him to re-sign if that is an option.

Question: Since you have notarized his signature several times with CWs, one of them being recently, is there any reason why you cannot claim you know him from personal knowledge?

Anyone I notarize for on a regular basis is not required to show me his or her ID each time; I've already seen it and know who they are. I put down PK (personal knowledge) for ID method. Sometimes I refer to an earlier entry for ID by DL. Txns cannot take down the TDL number, so I have no need to revisit the DL. I would think that CWs are similar. You know the guy by now. Just my thoughts, but I'm not in CA.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/8/11 3:36pm
Msg #371932

CA did away with "personally known" n/m

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/8/11 3:48pm
Msg #371936

I see that now. Thanks, Linda.

That is really inconvenient and it contradicts itself.

I think it is obvious that satisfactory evidence has been provided previous to that time.

Oh well...not my state; not my problem.

Sorry for my California friends, though.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/8/11 3:59pm
Msg #371939

Re: I see that now. Thanks, Linda.

Indeed. At this point... I know this man pretty well. If we could still use personal knowledge, it would help a lot.

Sometimes I'm thankful for CA notary law, and other times I just want to strangle it.

Reply by Cheryl Meril on 2/8/11 5:30pm
Msg #371950

Never Make Corrections to Certificate for Recording

Redo the cert if necessary because if you make any corrections whatsoever on the notarial certificate, all recording agencies rejection them. No initials, no corrections, no resigning if you botched the signature.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/8/11 5:45pm
Msg #371954

That's not true, Cheryl

There are many times corrections need to be made in certs by the notary, including crossouts for verbiage, party not appearing, correction of venue, etc etc - as long as the corrections are made relatively neatly, are initialed by the notary and the margins are maintained then they shouldn't be rejected.

Besides, OP is talking about a POA..

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/8/11 8:05pm
Msg #371981

Re: That's not true, Cheryl - I agree, Linda.

Venue is probably the most common, but I've often scratched out a capacity. For example, whoever generates the docs pre-fills the certs and includes "trustee" or "married", or something else from the vesting. Or we could have a split signing situation with both names pre-filled, and we have to strike out the one we don't notarize. I've done this too many times to count and I don't believe it's ever been an issue.

Reply by LKT/CA on 2/8/11 9:18pm
Msg #371992

I certainly understand your predicament.....I always line through that extraneous wording, then I initial. I let the customer know that the wording has to be the EXACT wording from the SOS. A probate attorney I networked with and notarize for stopped putting the that wording in her Acks when I emailed her the Ack and Jurat links from the SOS website.

I'm now running into issues with customers believing that notarizing makes their document "legal". <Sigh>........something else to explain/clarify.