Posted by emilysigns on 12/22/12 9:00am
Msg #447492

Opinions on journal

I admit. I am lame. lame, lame, lame.

to start, I am a devoted slave to my journal. Yes, I fill it out completely, every single time. Signatures on each line, and thumbprint for every required doc.

Every signing: WHHHHHHYYYYYY do we have to sign so many enteries?!?! Yeah, I don't love all the writing either, folks. (CA notaries can no longer draw the line and have them sign once.)

OMG. I just saw that NotRot has a journal for Signing agents. Check, check, check, SIGN.

Obviously, I immediately ordered myself a few and a couple to give as x-mas gifts to the notaries in my life. I am an idiot for not researching this sooner.

So--now, I'm stuck with this half filled journal. Yes, I know that I must keep a single, sequential journal. But do I HAVE to fill it completely before I move on to bigger and better??

Reply by janCA on 12/22/12 9:08am
Msg #447493

No, you don't have to fill the journal, but once you start another journal, you can't go back and use the old one. don't know why you wouldn't just finish the first journal.

CA notary law requires line-items for each document. That's it in a nutshell, although there is great controversy about that.

Reply by emilysigns on 12/22/12 9:15am
Msg #447495

So, the NotRot journal that has check boxes for multiple notarized docs is not acceptable?

The only reason I would not finish my current journal is to take the easier route of checking the boxes and having them sign once, but if this shortcut is not appropriate, there is no reason for me to use any specific format over the other because I would not achieve any time saved.

Reply by janCA on 12/22/12 10:19am
Msg #447502

Emily, do a search on this topic. there are varying opinions and interpretations of the law. I do line items because I've always done it that way and that's how I interpret the law.

Reply by emilysigns on 12/22/12 10:41am
Msg #447508

Thanks for your advice Jan.

I initially searched and did not find anything, but I tried again and hit the motherlode.

Question withdrawn. I think I will stick to my current single line per notarized name practices.

*sigh* would sure be nice to streamline the process though,

Reply by Julie/MI on 12/22/12 12:00pm
Msg #447520

Just chop out the remaining pages!

so glad I'm not a California notary

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/22/12 11:28pm
Msg #447596

Re: Just chop out the remaining pages!

I wouldn't remove those pages. Then it looks like she may have removed some entries. I would just "X-out" the remaining pages.

Reply by HisHughness on 12/22/12 7:46pm
Msg #447581

Correction

***CA notary law requires line-items for each document.***

> JAN < believes that California law requires that. As she herself has noted, forthright, upright and outtasight notary that she is, there are many of us who believe otherwise. That includes both California notaries and others who can read and interpret the law.

Reply by Budman on 12/22/12 12:22pm
Msg #447521

California states that each notorial act must be listed on a seperate line in your journal and not a single entry listed as loan docs. The purpose behind this is so that you can reconstruct the loan signing if you ever have to. With the journal sold here on not rot you are able to reconstruct the signing by only using one line in your journal and that's what I do. I believe that I'm in full compliance with the law in doing this. The only time I make the signers sign more that one line, is when I run out of room in the journal to record my notorial act.

Reply by Budman on 12/22/12 1:58pm
Msg #447537

That is my opinion, there will be several who disagree with me.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/22/12 2:32pm
Msg #447540

Like Jan said, you're perfectly allowed to start a new journal at any time, for any reason... you just can't go back to the old one. One time I accidentally left my journal in my home office safe, and grabbed one that was full... just an accidental switch. When I got to my appointment I realized my error and though, "Oh crud...." But then, I thought, "Eh, no big deal... " I always carry blank spiral notebook in my case and so right there, I just started a new journal and wrote it all out by hand, recording all of the required elements. I ended up using the notebook all day, and at the end of the day wrote the date on the cover and tucked it in the safe next the journal I'd forgotten. In the one I'd forgotten, which was only about half full, I just took a sharpie marker to the blank entries after the last one and wrote a note, "Journal ended [date], next journal...." and wrote out an explanation for the next (day-long) journal. Then, I pulled out fresh journal and started anew. Frustrating? Sure, but Still perfectly okay. There is absolutely no regulation or requirement as to the type of journal we keep. We are only told that it be sequential and secured and that it contain required elements. I've noted this before, but I know of one guy whose journal is a moleskin notebook that he keeps in his pocket, along with his pocket size seal. He's very old school and he writes everything out by hand, including notarial certificate wording if needed.

As for the one line thing... I think the CA Sec of State has made it abundantly clear they expect a full and complete journal entry for each signature notarized - one line per act. 6 acts? 6 lines... 6 signatures... not ditto marks, diagonal lines, etc. I know others interpret it differently, though. I can see their reasoning for it. I may disagree, but I understand their reasoning. If they feel that they are operating within the law, then it's between them and the CA Sec of State if they are ever audited or investigated. I just know that the Sec of State said in their latest newsletter that the majority of journal entries are not being done correctly.

Frankly? I blame the Sec of State for that... for all of the regulation they have, they also leave a lot to interpretation with the threat of severe fines and penalties. So for me, I'd rather be overly compliant than take the risk.

As for the Not Rot journal? Personally? I think it's the best one on the market, overall, as far as notary journals go. I *do* think it does a disservice to CA notaries, though, letting them think they can list all of their documents on a single line -- only because I disagree with that interpretation of CA law. However, I still think it's a great journal. I also think it lacks the requirement that each entry declare that identity was established by satisfactory evidence per CA CC 1185. If they altered it a little bit or they made one exclusively for CA notaries, I'd probably go back to using it because I really liked it --- but I found that a lot of it was wasted space for me. I've moved on to using one I designed myself suited to the way work and my journaling time has been cut down, though I still do one line per signature. Yes, it takes time... and yes, it's pretty annoying... but it is what it is. It's not worth the risk to me.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/22/12 2:40pm
Msg #447542

BTW... another reason I went with my own journal is because, as a left handed person, I really struggle with the center bound journals. Mine is spiral bound, at the top, and allows ease of access for just about everyone no matter their handedness or ability. Sometimes those big bound journals are just a major pain when dealing with old or sick people with limited space, such as a hospital bed.

Reply by ananotary on 12/22/12 3:55pm
Msg #447557

Marian- because of your strict view on the line item entries

For ca notaries, I was surprised about your grey interpretation for when credible witnesses can be used in a recent post. I agree with you the sos needs to be much clearer so that these things are not left to interpret.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/22/12 4:16pm
Msg #447559

Re: Marian- because of your strict view on the line item entries

See, I think that's the thing... so much interpretation. As for Credible Witnesses... that's just grey area anyway because it's not up to the notary, really. It's the witness who does the swearing of the facts, not us. We don't know the signer or the or circumstances enough to swear to the required facts. Just because somebody *has* an ID doesn't mean they can get a *proper* one.

For example, one time I met with a woman and her attorney at the attorney's office. They confided that her ID was expired and she hadn't renewed it because she had a warrant for her arrest, and she knew that if she went to renew her ID they'd take her in. However, she was trying to settle her affairs before surrendering herself and without ID, they were finding it difficult to do so. They knew that once she was in custody, it would be even more difficult so they wants to handle it privately before hand. The attorney arranged for credible witnesses to swear to her identity, and I was more than comfortable notarizing her signature. If the witnesses reasonably believed (per the handbook) that it would be difficult or impossible for her to obtain valid ID, then that's what they believe and swear to. Who am I to tell them otherwise? What I meant was that each situation is different with that. Most of the time, the lack of ID is just plain laziness and can easily be fixed. But there are always situations where the provision exists.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/23/12 1:10am
Msg #447604

Re: Marian- because of your strict view on the line item entries

I'll add one more thing about journals... in the Workbook that the Sec of State puts out, they say the following about journals:

"The California Secretary of State does not endorse or recommend any particular
commercially printed notarial journal. Any journal that includes space for recording all the
required details is acceptable. Many commercially printed notarial journals have space for
recording other information not required by California law, such as the date of the document, the
address of the signer and transaction notes." (page 28)

Reply by dgd/CA on 12/23/12 11:34am
Msg #447629

Re: Marian- because of your strict view on the line item entries

<Any journal that includes space for recording all the
required details is acceptable. >

Hence, the argument. The variance of opinion by Notaries Public of CA will continue.

Reply by emilysigns on 12/23/12 12:11pm
Msg #447635

Re: Marian- because of your strict view on the line item entries

I personally subscribe to the thought that it's better to be safe than sorry. I had hoped to find an easier and more efficient solution to having to spend so much time filling out my journal. Knowing that the question of its validity exists is enough for me to err towards caution and maintain my current practice.

Pinch of prevention vs. pound of cure type of thing. I would hate to be in the hot seat stuttering and stammering about how long it takes to fill in a journal properly. In that moment, I would imagine it would seem pretty trivial.

Reply by Pam/NM on 12/26/12 2:56pm
Msg #447809

NM does not require journals, although I keep one anyway. I was given to understand though, that journals should be bound/sewn and not spiral so that if any pages are missing it would be immediately apparent.