Posted by Carol Graff on 5/28/11 11:35pm
Msg #384625

humiliated by a Bank Officer

First time I was asked to notarize Home Eq. docs and he also booked me for the following evening.
He had me set up an acct to deposit my pay each time automatically. Not having a notary in the branch they had to take the customers across the street.

I was on my 5th doc and last two did not have proper CA verbage. I told him I could use my jurat stamp on one, but a loose cert on the other. He said the Atty's for the Bank have updated all of this and will not take a loose cert. I told him I do it all the time and they are always accepted. He said he could not do that and he would take to guy across the street who would do it for him. So naturally, we cancelled the job for the following evening and any future ones also, I'm sure. He said he was a notary up until last year and never used loose certs for the Bank notaries. It was embarassing in front of this nice couple and they had to go acrross the street. He said to send him an invoice. Very disappointing but I know I did the right thing.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/28/11 11:48pm
Msg #384628

Why be embarrassed? In those types of situations, I just pull out the state handbook and show them, in black and white, what the rules are.

It doesn't matter what they say... lawyers screw up all the time.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 5/29/11 12:13am
Msg #384630

Geez, just when we think we're prepared for every bonehead out there, along comes this idiot. Of course you did the right thing. I think I understand what you mean by being humiliated - he's grandstanding for the clients, ordering you around, and you're in the uncomfortable position of not wanting to add to the hostility in front of the nice couple.
Marian is absolutely right. On Page 11 of the CA handbook, is a big picture of an ack. The sentence preceding the pictured ack reads:" Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state shall be in the following form:" You could have pulled this out of your notary bag and politely showed him. Next time, w'll be ready!

And sorry you lost the busines. But this will soon be behind you...

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 5/29/11 3:11am
Msg #384632

Marian is right. There is no need for you to feel bad. You did the right thing. As both Marian and GoldGirl said, use the CA handbook to take the heat off of you. Let them argue with the law and not you for doing the right thing. If the signers see for themselves that he is asking you to do something that is not right, you will look better in their eyes for standing up and refusing to do what he is requesting.

Did you get the name of the notary that is "across the street"that he used? If it were me, as a professional courtesy, I would either go by to visit with them or call them to explain what was unacceptable as it appears that they might not be following the laws of your state. If they were not receptive, I would then report your experience to the SOS, if it were me.

Reply by MrEd_Ca on 5/29/11 8:39am
Msg #384639

Re: humiliated by a Bank Officer...

... Bank Officers, particularly Loan Officers working in a bank branch, as well as attorneys in general, are the biggest boneheads out there when it comes to being told about non-California Compliant certificates.
They do not like to be corrected, either in private or, particularly, in front of a customer. I specifically raised my rates with one SS who sends me bank branch closings because the bank people can be such unfriendly numbskulls.

Reply by Susan/CA on 5/29/11 9:44am
Msg #384644

Re: humiliated by a Bank Officer...

I agree with you and everyone here. It seems as though "most" of the attorney's I have done notaries for have the wrong verbiage on their documents. I don't carry the handbook with me (maybe I should) but I do let them know that the wording has changed (how many years ago now?) and I have not yet had a problem. Maybe they are afraid to confront me....hahahaaa! Yes, I am stern and persistent about it. I too am sorry to hear about the business loss, I know how that hurts. It feels awful when you think you have lost business. Why don't you send the banker (whoever you dealt with at the bank) the pages from the handbook?

Reply by Les_CO on 5/29/11 10:02am
Msg #384645

Did you notarize any documents for the borrowers? Can you id them? Do you have/or can you get a copy of the document with the disputed language? Are you SURE you’re correct? Was the bank employee nice about it or not? If not and all of the above are correct, I think I’d have his job. I would fully document what happened, I would notify/meet with the bank president and ask him if he was aware that one of his employees was breaking CA law, and instructing his customers to likewise break CA law, and instructing a CA notary (probably another employee) to break CA law. I would mention in these days of massive bank fraud that the bank examiners could be very interested in how banks are advising their customers. Then see who is humiliated. JMO

Reply by Notarysigner on 5/29/11 10:17am
Msg #384647

I'do the same as Les. We have/had a poster here who decided to recently become a LO and I wonder what she would say about this. I can't remember her name.

Reply by Carol Graff on 5/29/11 10:21am
Msg #384649

Thank you everyone for your support. I do not know the notary he used "across the street", but I will check it out. I did tell the LO on my invoice that I called the NNA and they backed me up. We'll see how quickly he pays! Again, I appreciate your support so much.

Reply by rengel/CA on 5/29/11 4:01pm
Msg #384679

The Secretary of State is the authority in this case

not the NNA

My .02

Reply by desktopfull on 5/29/11 10:20am
Msg #384648

I was just going to suggest that the bank rep be reported to the CA banking association, because he indicated that other customers had signed the same document with a notarization. Any that have done this since the law changed in CA is incorrect and needs to be corrected. Let the consequences fall where they may on the notaries that performed the notarizations and this bank officer may wind up being out of a job.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/29/11 7:36pm
Msg #384687

LIKE! and two points...

Les is right. If you are absolutely 100% you are right, move forward.

Two things I would look closely at.

-Certificate Wording - is it "substantially" in the form of a Calfornia all-purpose ack? In other words, as long as it has the elements required by the common form, it's okay, even if it's a little different. (That's my interpretation of 1188. An officer taking the acknowledgment of an instrument shall endorse thereon or attach thereto a certificate substantially in the form prescribed in Section 1189.)

-Would it be filed in another state? For instance, if I sent a deed to a buyer in California on a house in Texas, the standard Texas Acknowledgement would be fine. It has always been tough on Texas title companies to send a package out to California to be signed. Notaries refuse to use the Texas certificate when their laws are clear that it is fine. That means the filing fees collected are off.

As a lender's attorney's assistant, I have had a lot of angst over this. In the past I have prepared perfect California acknowledgments only to have notaries attach yet another one on a bunch of notarized documents. That throws off the filing fees, too. It is totally uncalled for.

Sorry for the rant, but this really should be stressed to signing agents.

Section 1189
(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 Marian_in_CA on 5/29/11 10:12pm
Msg #384697

Re: LIKE! and two points...

The key, though, is that the wording for the other state is REQUIRED by the state... not even California requires specific wording to be used on notarial certificates completed outside of California. (CA Civ Code 1189: " 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.")

As a CA notary, I never use non-compliant wording on an ACK unless I can verify that the other state absolutely requires that wording. So far, I've found no such requirement, therefore, I always use CA compliant wording.




"As a lender's attorney's assistant, I have had a lot of angst over this. In the past I have prepared perfect California acknowledgments only to have notaries attach yet another one on a bunch of notarized documents."

Those notaries are just plain dumb, then. Sadly, many of them have been "told" they have to attach a loose form no matter what. That's not at all true.



"Certificate Wording - is it "substantially" in the form of a Calfornia all-purpose ack? In other words, as long as it has the elements required by the common form, it's okay, even if it's a little different."

Nope... not true. the problem is that some of the extraneous words tossed in (or left out) change the meaning or ask us to certify things that aren't true or that we're not allowed to do. It's a bit dangerous and sadly, there are a lot of CA notaries who aren't smart enough to know the difference or comprehend the meaning of a foreign certificate.

Reply by Carol Graff on 5/29/11 10:34pm
Msg #384698

Re: LIKE! and two points...

I'm not sure where it was going to be filed--that never came up. The property was in Ca. and so is the Bank so not sure on this one. You would think he would have brought that up if that was the case. The other 3 notarizations all had CA. verbage.

Reply by Joan Bergstrom on 5/29/11 10:58pm
Msg #384699

I carry an Acknowledgment Stamp

I am not defending this bank official; he is wrong, but if there is room on a document for an Acknowledgment stamp, it can solve the problem to correct verbiage.

It is interesting how many people much prefer a stamp on a page rather than the attached form.
Most notary/loan-signers in CA purchase a Jurat stamp because the Jurat verbiage is often incorrect.

I started carrying a Ca Ack stamp around a year ago and when I am notarizing public notary work, I use the Ack stamp and the signer(s) is happy with both the stamp and the seal located on the same page.

Not all documents have enough room for a CA Ack stamp because it's much larger than a Jurat stamp.

I use to think an Ack stamp was useless/stupid/etc but I have really changed my mind.

I still use the paper Ack form for loan signings because our industry expects that form to be attached, but I love the Ack stamp for other types of signings.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/29/11 11:09pm
Msg #384701

Re: I carry an Acknowledgment Stamp

I love Ack stamps. The first time I used one on a DoT, however, it was rejected for recording. I think the letters must be of a certain point size.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/29/11 11:08pm
Msg #384700

Re: LIKE! and two points...

I'm not a California notary, so I can't argue with you about your laws, but I do not read these like you do and, of course, neither did the title company lawyers or lender lawyers I worked with...and, they were not the types bashed around here...they really did care.

"...in accordance" apparently means required wording in California, while over in Texas we would consider that to be "...an acknowledgment that is prepared according to Texas law..." and there are those standards in Texas.

Am I missing the term "required" wording somewhere? If so, I will put this to rest in my head. My thoughts were that if they had to be *filed* in another state, that was the criteria to allow another another state's criteria to be sufficient, unless capacity was involved.

This is a great topic, by the way. I have high degree of respect for you, Marian. Thanks for your input on this topic.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/30/11 2:02am
Msg #384705

Re: LIKE! and two points...

I agree with Marian on this. And FYI, the word "required" is in 1189 which you quoted in your post above. I think this is a very commonly missed (or ignored), but key word in that paragraph. Also, if you go back and reread Marian's post (which I just had to do a couple of times... ), you'll see that the "in accordance" language refers to signatures acknowledged in other states being accepted here, not the other way around.

As for acknowledgment wording, the 2011 handbook now states:

"The certificate of acknowledgment MUST BE in the form set forth in Civil Code section 1189". [Caps are added by me.] This is in the second sentence under the "Acknowledgment" section. And right before it shows the form referred to, they again state: "Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state SHALL BE in the following form:" [Again, caps are my own.]

To me, this seems to indicate that they don't want us playing around with the wording at all. However, it IS a change from handbook language of several years ago, which I believe used to say that the wording must be "substantially" in that format. Like Marian, these days, I only use certificates that have exact wording. If I'm doing a signing for a property in another state, I try to look up what their state requirements are in advance so I know how to handle it. Whenever in doubt - or if that state requires something prohibited in CA, like "personally known to me" or a capacity, I always add a CA cert.

Hope this helps to clarify things. And I agree - great topic, and great discussion!

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/30/11 6:51am
Msg #384712

Got it, Janet.

I was looking at the part that Marian quoted.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 5/30/11 4:08am
Msg #384706

I'd take a totally different approach

First, you have to decide exactly what it is that you want. Do you want to 'win' a great big bag of "I'm right and you're wrong", or would you rather try to gain back the client? Me, I'd take an entirely different tactic than most would, I guess. I'd rather gain the client.

It's human nature to feel a sense of indignation in these situations, but IME it's usually more productive to ACT from a sense of humility rather than indignation - no matter how you FEEL, no matter how right you are and how wrong they are. Again, it depends on what a person really wants.

I'd go back and ask to have a minute with the L/O, I'd be humble, I'd explain that the situation really upset me because I certainly don't wish to make any errors. I'd say that I reviewed things and am not finding how I erred, and if they would be so kind as to help me ..."I understand, certainly, if you have no wish to continue a relationship with me, but as this situation has never happened to me before, I would really like to learn from it."

I don't mean to sound like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, but sometimes the best way to illustrate to a person how much of an arse they've been is to treat them with humility and undercut their own sense (deserved or otherwise) of self-righteousness. It gives them an 'out'. He likely acted on his own sense of indignation (justified or not). He might come back with something that you both can work out. Perhaps he got his little ego snagged (easy to do with L/O's - remember, they're SALES people and that's often a particular personality), and given the chance to tell you how 'badly' you acted, you might counter that with "I'm so sorry, I understand how you feel and you've helped me understand how I could've approached this differently." If the relationship can be repaired - the logistics will follow. It's so much easier to help people LEARN (that he's using the wrong cert, and that in fact YOU were right and HE was the jerk) by using humility.

Or, you could go for the Big Bag of "I'm right and you're wrong" from a more reactive stance, by reporting people to superiors for example. It won't likely gain you the relationships, but you could win being right. Depends what you want.

Reply by BrendaTx on 5/30/11 10:54am
Msg #384738

Agree, Renee'

I think it would be very enlightening for her to learn what his reasoning is. Perhaps he will learn that he needs new lawyers.

Or maybe, he's just a jackass.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 5/30/11 11:33am
Msg #384743

Great post, Renee, thank you. n/m

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/30/11 8:20am
Msg #384715

I *sort of* disagree with Renee

Although I do agree with her approach to the problem, I would have done this immediately after the closing - I'd have hung around to have a minute with him when he was done and had a conversation with him about his expectations of me and to express MY expectations for myself (i.e. being allowed to do my job; I would not go back and do this - he's probably moved on and will wonder WTH you're doing in his office.

I do have one question...you said "I was on my 5th doc and last two did not have proper CA verbage. I told him I could use my jurat stamp on one, but a loose cert on the other"

Why did you even open the discussion with him? When I do signings with LO's present I do my thing and that's it - if the cert needs revision, I just do it; if the doc requires a loose cert (which most don't) I just do it - I don't ask LO's approval or acceptance of the procedure I need to follow. This whole scenario probably could have been avoided.

Also, since the subject was out there, when he said the attorneys had updated all the forms, I'd have politely mentioned that they may have overlooked the ones in question but I had correct forms with me. This happened to me at a safe deposit box opening one day - I'd done several in the past but this day the bank officer handed me a form they now "required" - the paralegal in their legal department had revised their own forms and they now needed this new one done. Well, it had me notarizing my own signature - so I used my own form, I signed their form certifying contents - did not stamp - gave her a sample ack, jurat and S.D. form as outlined by the state and suggested she give these to their legal department for guidance. And yes, I've been called again since.

Reply by Carol Graff on 5/30/11 10:34am
Msg #384724

He opened the discussion, not me

THe LO was sitting right next to me and saw me use the Jurat stamp. He was not happy then but seemed to accept it. Then when I reached for my loose cert he said "Our lawyers will not accept this". I tired to give him correct ACK but he would not take it. I have decided to let things be as I don't think he will ever change his mind. I am not going to report him, nor the other notary (I do not know who that is). I did tell him I did the right thing acc. to NNA. I do realize I probably should have said Sec. of State,(which I will quote in the future), but I don't think it would have mattered to him. He probably does not want to deal with the "higher-ups" or make waves. Nor do I.
I've done plenty of signings for this Bank from SS, and never a problem which I also told him.
Again, thanks all for your support & suggestions. I've finally moved on. Happy Memorial Day!

Reply by MW/VA on 5/30/11 10:45am
Msg #384732

Re: He opened the discussion, not me

That sounds like a difficult situation, but sounds like one close to UPL. We can't choose the type of certificate in VA. I guess your position would be to decide if you're able to comply or not. If it were me, I also wouldn't rely on info from the XYZ. They have their own agenda.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 5/30/11 6:55pm
Msg #384751

Re: He opened the discussion, not me

Not only would I not rely on XYZ, I would never cite them as a resource. As someone else said, they are NOT the authority on what is right or wrong (and I wouldn't trust them anyway.) But I agree with Carol about leaving it be at this point (unless that was an account really worth making an effort to try to save.) If it's the latter, I think Renee offered some fantastic advice.

Ultimately, though, I think the take-away on this one is to handle it differently up front and try to avoid a confrontation with the LO. That's the time to be low-key, but confident. You want to avoid putting that person on the defensive by flat out telling them they're wrong. You could advise that the law has recently changed and the attorney may not have been aware of it yet. Then instead of getting into a big discussion about who is right or wrong (especially in front of a borrower), you just pull out the SOS handbook (the REAL ultimate source) and SHOW him. Also, if it's during business hours, you could call the SOS Notary Division. I have that number programmed into my phone (although thankfully it's been a very long time since I've had to use it.) Let them tell the LO that his attorney is incorrect. That way you can keep smiling as the innocent bystander who is just doing her job.

Frankly, a lot of it is in what you say and how you say it. It just takes confidence, and perhaps a good bit of practice.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/30/11 10:50am
Msg #384735

Make sure you bill them, Carol

I would expect payment in full - you did your part and you were not the one who decided to "go across the street" - the signing was interrupted by the LO asking you to perform an illegal act...

BTW, when I'm told "well, the *other* notary does it all the time", contrary to to those who call me meek and mild, I have NO problem speaking up and letting them know that the *other* notary is wrong - especially when I can show it to them in black and white.

Bill them for payment in full

MHO

Reply by Eva75Eva on 6/1/11 12:29pm
Msg #384872

I once was humiliated by a real estate agent. It was at a purchase closing-buyers and sellers present with agents representing both parties. All totaled 6 people including me, the notary, in a stuffy small conference room. First of all I sat there for half an hour while they bickered about the cost of miscellaneous repairs on the house being sold. Then began the signing. I was in essence working on behalf of the buyers and was told by the title company to only print copies for the buyers, which I thought was odd because the seller usually gets a few copies as well. Thank God the seller only needed about 6 copies because as soon as the realtor found out I had no copies for his client he became very upset and called me disorganized and unprofessional in front of every one in the room. I sat there in disbelief, as I was more than prepared and pride myself on being organised and having everything I need for a successful signing. I was mortified, my blood was boiling, yet I stayed calm, citing that I had only followed instructions from the title company. I quickly gathered what few documents the seller had to sign and the realtor went off in a huff to copy them. From now on I feel as if I should follow my own instincts. It wouldn't have been that hard for me to have made the seller's copies at home and I would have avoided this fiasco altogether. Sometimes the advice you get from the higher ups isn't always right.