Posted by Laura Fernandez on 4/26/12 10:06pm
Msg #419060
Title Companies asking for backdating
So I have a signing company calling me asking me to re-submitt an Acknowledgment almost 3 months after the loan signing was done. Apparently the Title has "accidentally" destroyed an "Acknowledgment" that went with a Grant Deed and now they want me to re-issue a new one. Putting me in a awkward situation when I tell them both it is illegal and I cannot do that. They both tell me they get it done all the time and that I am not cooperating and being difficult. I cant believe it! Making me feel like Im not a team player and asking me to clean up their mistate, even after I told them that it is an illegal act. From what they are both so strongly telling me, it sounds like they both believe themselves that it is a valid and legal act to do and that Im wrong. I called the NNA and the Secretary of State to clarify this matter and they both re-assured me that I am right. It is Illegal and cannot be done. How do these Title companies feel like they are so empowered and try to make a notary feel so small in these situations. Its so upsetting because Im doing the right thing in telling them NO and now this signing company will never call me again for future signings. You would think they want honest and knowledgeable notaries who they can count on to do the right thing and not be shady doing illegal acts. Its a No-Win situation. If you do it than you could potentially lose your commission, not to mention the penalties, fines that come along with it and if you dont than you lose a client who is asking you to do it. So frustrating!
| Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 4/26/12 10:29pm
Msg #419065
It's not their butt that's on the line!
Not frustrating at all. Just do the right thing and hold your head up high!
| Reply by KODI/CA on 4/26/12 10:37pm
Msg #419067
If you do not care about future business with them, report them to our Secretary of State. For them to ask you to do this is a felony. If they have this done "all of the time", than they are consistently breaking the law. I would report them immediately. That's just me.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/26/12 10:40pm
Msg #419069
Actually, it's a misdemeanor, not a felony... but it's still
illegal.  I agree, report it. At the very least, tell THEM that you'll report them, and you'll be surprised how fast their tune changes.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/26/12 10:39pm
Msg #419068
Since you're in CA... you've got it easy. Just remind them that, per CA law, what they are asking you to do is illegal, and if they ask you again, then you will report them because knowingly asking or coercing a CA notary to do something illegal is against the law and THEY could get in to trouble just for asking.
It's a powerful tool that CA notaries have, and everytime I whip it out, it works.
It's CA Government Code 8225(a):
"Any person who solicits, coerces, or in any manner influences a notary public to perform an improper notarial act knowing that act to be an improper notarial act, including any act required of a notary public under Section 8206, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
Note that it says "solicits, coerces or in any manner..."? Just merely the act of continuing to ASK you do to it is illegal on their part. Once you tell them it's illegal, you're done. If they push it, get it in writing and report them. Let the SoS handle it.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/26/12 10:45pm
Msg #419070
Oh, and BTW... don't worry about losing their business. If they break the law, do you really want to be working for them? No way!! You want to work for companies that respect the law and you.
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 4/26/12 11:11pm
Msg #419071
I don't think Marian's approach would work. The company could just say they didn't make any notes about the conversation where the notary told them about backdating being illegal, and forgot that it was illegal. Or they could claim that they did indeed remember what the notary told them, but figured the notary didn't believe the notary about it being illegal. After all, it was just a notary, what do they know?
| Reply by Laura Fernandez on 4/27/12 12:59am
Msg #419079
Thanks all for your input. Believe it or not I have an email from the signing company clearly asking me to do this. Even sending me a copy of the original acknowledgment as proof on their behalf that I did provide this service and asking me to reissue a new one with the same information/date. So its pretty clear they are asking me to backdate even though she stated that is not what she is asking me to do. The weird thing is that even the Title Company lady was so sure this is a legal act. When I told her it was not, she made me feel like I didnt know what I was talking about. So I didnt get the feeling she was doing it intentionally, but more that she was not clear on the law. So I feel like I have a responsibility to let her know she was wrong and has been wrong all of this time and putting the notary at risk. This title company is a well known company. which I have done a lot of work for through signing companies. Just goes to show that even those big companies arent as knowledgeable as you would think.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/27/12 3:22am
Msg #419093
Well, that's where you keep send it to them in writing, via fax or email. It's not that difficult. When I've had this happen, I follow-up a phone call with an email where I link them to the specific California code that applies, along with the 8225a reference.
The key is to get it in writing.
| Reply by Christine/OK on 4/27/12 7:33am
Msg #419094
Wonderful support from everyone's input. So nice to be in such good company! Appreciate it.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/27/12 12:57am
Msg #419078
Technically speaking (if I correctly understand your post), the SS is not asking you to backdate anything. They are asking you to submit another acknowledgement, which they would likely expect to be dated for the day the signers appeared before you (3 months ago). Of course, you cannot send a loose ack to anyone; it has to be attached to the original document. If you simply told the NNA and the SOS that you were being asked to "backdate," they, of course, would have told you No.
| Reply by Laura Fernandez on 4/27/12 1:06am
Msg #419082
To answer your question, Yes both the SS Co and Title are asking me to reissue an acknowledgment replacing one that was done 3 months ago. Needing the original date. No I didnt tell the nna or secretary of state anything about backdating, just what they asked me to do.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/27/12 1:56am
Msg #419088
As His Hughness pointed out earlier this year, notaries are on earth mainly to facilitate the functions of business (more or less), and inevitably some documents related to business (i.e. our acks) may get "lost." Does that mean life as we know it screeches to a halt and all business must cease? Well, no, because there are ways to aid in the correction of your situation. But to call it backdating - that is, asking you to certify that the signers appeared before you on a certain date, when in fact they were in Istanbul and you were in Los Angeles, is not what they are saying (IMO). Your notary log shows when they appeared before you and that will never change, and as far as I can tell, they're not asking you to change it.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/27/12 2:02am
Msg #419089
I wouldn't call this backdating either.
Backdating would be completing a notary certificate with incorrect information, in other words, putting a date on the certificate that is different from the real date when the person actually "personally appeared before" you.
| Reply by Barbara A Demonte on 4/27/12 9:32am
Msg #419111
That's not what they are asking to be done.
They are requesting a replacement acknowledgement with the original date from months ago, not a certification that the parties appeared on that date. BIG difference, IMHO.
| Reply by HisHughness on 4/27/12 1:51am
Msg #419087
This issue has arisen here many times before...
...and I am always puzzled both at the intensity and the direction of the responses. Goldengirl has correctly identified the issue. The form acknowledgements I use, which are approved by the state, declare:
On __________________, 20____ before me, Hugh Nations, Notary Public, personally appeared ___________________________________________________, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacities.
I can find nothing in that declaration that says I cannot attach that to a signature I witnessed yesterday, or last week, or at any reasonable time in the past, as long as it is attached to the relevant document. I witnessed the signatures by the named persons, and I did it on the date cited. What is the problem?
Others on this forum has vigorously contended that their state laws prohibit such. That may be the case, but I have reservations about it. What has been disclosed here in the past is that often what is claimed to be the law is actually the notary's form of urban myth. I know of no law in my jurisdiction that would prohibit me from creating a replacement certification and attaching it to the relevant document.
It strikes me that those who insist the whole thing needs to be executed and notarized again is another instance of the notary, out of an inflatee sense of importance, inserting himself into the process to make it more difficult, when his real aim should be to facilitate the signer's business in compliance with the law.
All of the above, of course, is predicated on the assumption that no state or states have actually adopted a proscription that makes so little sense.
| Reply by Bob_Chicago on 4/27/12 10:04am
Msg #419118
Could not have said it better myself. Totally agree. n/m
| Reply by Buddy Young on 4/27/12 11:31am
Msg #419142
Re: Could not have said it better myself. Totally agree. n/m
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/27/12 3:18am
Msg #419092
This wouldn't matter anyway....
Since in CA we are now required to staple all loose certificates to the original document. So having them request a "duplicate" can't really fly either.
Besides, all of my loose certificates have a "serial" number on them (a matter of my own security practice) which is recorded on each individual entry. I do not issue "duplicate" acknowledgments. A new certificate issued is a whole new notarial act, and requires personal appearance.
IN reality, it is backdating... because they are asking for a new certificate, and since (in CA) our journal entries require sequential entries, we can't just go back date our journals.
IMO - any new certificate requires a new journal entry. It's not our fault they lost, destroyed (or whatever) the first one.
As for them knowing it's illegal... they know it. They just don't care. They know that they can browbeat notaries in to skirting the rules in order to "do them a favor" or threaten them with no more work. Well, that's coercion... and it's against the law in California.
| Reply by Christine/OK on 4/27/12 7:37am
Msg #419095
Re: This wouldn't matter anyway....
Great input. 
| Reply by janCA on 4/27/12 9:22am
Msg #419108
Our handbook does not address duplicates...
I have to agree with Janet and Hugh. This is a replacement acknowledgment. Everything is the same. I would have the Company send me the original so I could attach.
The company is not asking you to go out and get the instrument re-signed. Then, that would be a whole new notarial act and you would have to reissue a whole new cert with the current date.
Everything you put into that replacement cert is true. These people appeared before you on that specific date and they acknowledged executing the document on that date.
I certainly would not send the "replacement" cert in the mail without the original being attached, but I see no problem replacing the acknowledgment and attaching it to the original.
| Reply by Jack/AL on 4/27/12 1:01am
Msg #419080
I'd just ask them to contact..........
one of the Notaries Public by whom "they get it done all the time." That way, they can all work happily together in committing mortgage fraud!
| Reply by Laura Fernandez on 4/27/12 1:06am
Msg #419083
Re: I'd just ask them to contact..........
Yes very true!! I agree!
| Reply by desktopfull on 4/27/12 9:27am
Msg #419110
Ask them to put it in writing & see what happens! n/m
| Reply by Barbara A Demonte on 4/27/12 9:25am
Msg #419109
Should this be a difficult decision?
"Its a No-Win situation. If you do it than you could potentially lose your commission, not to mention the penalties, fines that come along with it and if you dont than you lose a client who is asking you to do it. So frustrating!"
Actually it's a question of whether you prefer money over honesty and ethics. I'm not going to jail and acquiring a criminal record for anyone over a closing that at most pays $150.00. You don't need clients that threaten you and are willing to jeopardize your freedom. If this were legal at all, the TC would use either the LPOA or Correction Agreement that all borrower's sign at closing. I've never completed a closing that didn't have one or both of those documents included.
If you have this request in writing, I suggest that you forward it to your state Attorney General, your Secretary of State, and Board of Professional Conduct. It's time to stop mortgage fraud. In Florida, the foreclosure mills were shut down when a notary finally reported the fraudulent documents that were routinely being reproduced in order to file for foreclosure. All it took was "one person" standing up to these powerful law firms.
You have a choice, go along with the gimmickry or uphold the public trust awarded to you through your commission. Shouldn't be a difficult decision.
| Reply by kathy/ca on 4/27/12 9:46am
Msg #419115
Hugh, GG, JanetK and JanCA are right on but be sure to attac
notary certificate to original document.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/27/12 12:24pm
Msg #419153
Kathy's point leads ...
... me back to my first thought: If the notary rightly insists on having the original doc in hand before issuing a "replacement" ack, why not just meet with the signers again and issue a new ack with new date? (They don't even need to sign it again. They'd simply acknowledge that they already signed it, and the notarial certificate would indicate that on the new date the signers said that those were their signatures on the document.) Main problem with this, of course, is that it's hard to imagine a TC going to the trouble of digging up a DOT from 3 months ago and returning it to a notary (can it even be done?). Also, the original signers may now be unavailable for many reasons. Still, any self-respecting lender/TC would just have the notary start over from the beginning. (I've had that request several times). The reason they're asking the notary to overnight an ack is cos they're laaaazy, don't know or care it's against the law and can't believe a notary wouldn't accommodate the request.
In any case, it is illegal for a CA notary to send a loose ack through the mail, and I believe that those posters who referred to sending a replacement ack all agreed it HAD to be attached to something. It's also illegal for anybody to coerce, beg, demand, etc. that a notary send a loose ack through the mail, especially after the notary told them to send the original document back.
But still, it's not a request to backdate. Also, even if a notary did issue a replacement ack, it would still meet the sequential journal rule, IMO. For example, on such and such date, the notary would enter in her journal that she prepared a new certificate identical to the one she did 3 months ago and attached it to the orginal document. Yes, a new certificate requires a new journal entry, and that's exactly what she did. Still, why would we go that route? With the original doc in hand, just meet with the signers again...which (sigh) brings us back to square one.
| Reply by Jessica Iannuzzi on 4/27/12 10:20am
Msg #419120
This happened to me a few months back. A title company with whom I had a VERY good relationship with, 6-7 closings a week (!) asked me to backdate. I couldnt do it. Its against the law and you can be severely punished and fined. It is UN-NOTARY-LIKE in every sense of the word. Needless to say, after I told them no they never called me again. I would have been guilt ridden had I agreed to the signing. That in itself is not worth the $150 I would have made. Oh by the way.......IT IS AGAINST THE LAW!
| Reply by jnew on 4/27/12 10:56am
Msg #419129
I am side-stepping the legality of a replacement acknowledgment, since I don't know for sure. The question that immediately rose was why it took three months to attempt to record a deed. The register of deeds would not record a deed with no acknowledgment. Why did it take so long to get back to you.
| Reply by Eve/VA on 4/27/12 2:38pm
Msg #419167
Last minute mess from start to finish. Big lesson learned. Confirmation call but only one BO showed for the signing.
Not only was I asked to backdate but I was asked by the TC to leave the docs at the house, let co-BO sign when she got off of work, then pick up the docs the next morning from the BO and notarize. Not once laying eyes on the co-BO. I refused. They filed a false complaint (unprofessionalism) on the other site and never paid me for that signing (a fair 50%) or a previous successful signing.
TC with very high ratings by the way.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/27/12 4:37pm
Msg #419183
Did they want you to notarize the co-BO's signature with the previous day's date? If so, definitely back-dating and illegal. If they were OK with you notarizing with the actual date of the next morning, when the 2nd party personally appeared before you - and were willing to pay you to go back again - I would consider that a workable solution, if the lender would also go along with it (which wouldn't be my concern).
If not, I'd sure like to know which company it was that, in addition to filing a false complaint (although I'm not clear on what that means...), actually stiffed you on a different assignment that was presumably completed accurately! (Unless there's more to this story than is mentioned here...)
That appears to be adding a dose of vindictiveness to a pretty flagrant infraction!
| Reply by Eve/VA on 4/27/12 7:52pm
Msg #419210
No more to the story. And it was clear what I was being asked to do. Leave the docs for the co-BO to sign in my absence. I would then pick up docs the next morning from the BO and notarize and backdate as if the docs were signed the evening before. I said I can't agree to do that, I could lose my commission.
Then the fun and games started when I tried to collect on at least the first signing.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/27/12 3:26pm
Msg #419178
Here's why I don't issue replacments...
I agree with most that issuing a replacement, on it's face, isn't backdating. The problem, for me, is that how do I KNOW that their story is true? They lost it? They could be lying and just want a spare. Let's face, we don't have a great deal of trust in some of these people handling the paperwork.
The only way I would issue a duplicate would be if the original document and the original, damaged or messed up notarial certificate were returned, otherwise... it's a new act, in my eyes.
What if I do, and somehow, both certificates end up attached to something? How do I then explain an extra certificate with my seal on it out there without a corresponding journal entry?
Every time my seal hits a paper, there is a corresponding journal entry...it's that's simple. I totally respect that others may view this differently, but since it's not specifically addressed for us (in CA) I choose to do it that way because I am cautious about how I handle loose certificates. I'm more strict than most, and I know it. If I don't personally destroy the original loose certificate, it's an entirely new certificate and thus a new notarial act with a corresponding journal entry.
All that said, though, now that we have to have the original document anyway to staple... I think it's rather moot. I would just tell them that the state requires loose certs to be stapled to the original... and if they want it right away, just send me back out to the borrowers and have it re-signed as of today's date. It's not our fault they lost or ruined paperwork.
| Reply by HisHughness on 4/27/12 4:05pm
Msg #419181
Re: Here's why I don't issue replacments...
***I'm more strict than most, and I know it.***
I assume you also know, then, that you are inserting yourself full bore into a process that does not require it; that you are inflating your role in the signer's business beyond all reasonable requirements; that you are causing actually identifiable problems for any number of people based on the unlikely event that some fantasized fears may be realized; and that none of that is necessary.
I am thunderstruck that you think YOUR role is so important that you can drape upon it, like a perverted Christmas tree, all sorts of requirements that the state never saw fit to impose, knowing all the time that your demands are only YOUR demands. That, I think, is about the most extreme case yet of a notary who deems her role in the clients' business more important than the clients' business itself. Why on earth, if the State of California does not explicitly require it, would you impose such demands on your clients? That is bizarre.
You say you "choose to do it that way because I am cautious about how I handle loose certificates." You obviously are not equally cautious about what you may cost the people who unknowingly use your services; a more appropriate adjective would be "uncaring."
Loosen up, Marian. We're not the wheel; we're only one of the cogs. I could have phrased all this more gently, but I keep picturing an 87-year-old woman who needs to get a deed transferred to her son with a heart problem before she goes into a hospice to die of cancer.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/27/12 4:16pm
Msg #419182
Re: Here's why I don't issue replacments...
I see your point... however... I choose not to believe people if they tell me that they've lost or damaged the certificate. It may be true... but it may not be, either. Too many of these compnaies ask for an "extra" just in case, anyway.
It's not a matter of inflating my role... it's a matter of controlling my records. If I cannot know, for certain, what happened to that original certificate, then I'm not going to blindly issue a new one chancing that there are multiples out there that don't match my records. That's my issue... I know of notaries that have been fined for poor record keeping in CA.
As we said, in CA we have to attach the loose certs to the original now, by staple. We absolutely can't just send or fax a duplicate certificate because they ask for one. So... in reality, it would be EASIER, CHEAPER and more EFFICIENT to just reprint the original, get the signatures and send it in rather than wait for the original to be sent and then send it back.
| Reply by HisHughness on 4/27/12 4:38pm
Msg #419184
Re: Here's why I don't issue replacments...
***As we said, in CA we have to attach the loose certs to the original now, by staple. We absolutely can't just send or fax a duplicate certificate because they ask for one. So... in reality, it would be EASIER, CHEAPER and more EFFICIENT to just reprint the original, get the signatures and send it in rather than wait for the original to be sent and then send it back.***
Marian, I think virtually everyone who has posted here has conceded that the replacement certificate would have to be stapled to the original <by the notary>. That's a given.
What is NOT a given is that it would be more convenient for the document just to be reexecuted. Just as you can spin an infinite number of minimally possible scenarios involving misuse of a replacement certificate, I can spin an infinite number of far more plausible scenarios where requiring re-execution would be difficult to impossible. In such instances, without any basis in the law, you have indeed inflated your role to one of nothing but an impediment.
If the law doesn't require it, and if it poses a substantial chance that it could interfere with a signer's business, then I don't think a notary should require it, and I would suggest you reconsider your approach.
I do what the law requires of me. It was the state that established the function of the notary, it was the state that set the requirements, and I'm not going to substitute my wisdom for the state's wisdom.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/27/12 4:48pm
Msg #419186
Re: Here's why I don't issue replacments...
"I do what the law requires of me."
As do I... but our laws are silent on this. That's the problem. When silent, it becomes an individual's decision, ad for now... I choose to do it my way. I'm happy to issue a duplicate if I can be assured that the original certificate was destroyed, but I don't just accept somebody's word that it happened and I don't want to risk multiple certificates out there because it could come back to me and impact my
That said, I'm always open to changing my practice should I be told otherwise by our state authorities. However, I just spent 45 minutes on hold and spoke with the CA SoS's office and they told me that we cannot issue a duplicate certificate, even with the original document in hand... that it means an entirely new notarization.
So, I stand by what I've said.
|
|
