Posted by HisHughness on 3/23/12 8:37am
Msg #415766

Query

All of us, of course, have encountered the "personally known to me" averment in acknowledgements. I always strike and initial that. I'm in an urban area, and in 10 years as a signing agent, I have only twice encountered people I know in closings.

Occasionally, though, that phrasing is included in the opening paragraph of the body of a document. I also strike it there.

I've been doing closings for a large, quite reputable and most professional title company. Texas in a spousal state, which means virtually every packet has a Marital Status Affidavit, and the affidavit is structured like that. I'm required to get advance approval of any changes to the documents.

How do you other signing agents handle it when you encounter that wording in the body of the affidavit? The acknowledgement is no problem; that's my turf, and I rule supreme. But I got some kickback when I brought up the issue about the wording in the document.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 3/23/12 8:44am
Msg #415767

The preamble is usually part of the notary's certificate

If the affidavit begins with "Before me, the undersigned authority...", this is being written from the notary's perspective and the notary is responsible for making changes to it.

Reply by SharonMN on 3/23/12 12:54pm
Msg #415819

Re: The preamble is usually part of the notary's certificate

I agree with FlaNotary2. I just go ahead and change it without asking the client. Nobody has ever complained in 6 years of doing this.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 3/23/12 8:51am
Msg #415771

Not being a wise guy, but once you have established their

identity in accorcance with the laws of your state, IMO, you "personally know " them, at least well
enough for purposes of the phrasing that you describe.
And is it really necessary, as a NP, (not to include NSA) that we know the content of the document that we are about to notarize?
I try to follow the same "rule" that I tell my signers, "The less that you mess with the documents, the better."

Reply by HisHughness on 3/23/12 9:07am
Msg #415772

Re: Not being a wise guy, but once you have established their

I would normally agree with that approach, Bob, consistent with my philosophy of facilitating the signer's business, except that Texas is one of the states in which personal knowledge can be used as a basis for ID. Thus, I think that the phrase "personally known to me" presupposes some prior knowledge of the signer. Whereas I am always happy to try to facilitate the signer's business, I'm not nearly as charitable in facilitating poor drafting by lawyers.

Reply by ikando on 3/23/12 9:21am
Msg #415775

Re: Not being a wise guy, but once you have established their

I seem to recall the word "or" between "personally known" or has provided evidence/ID (exact phrase not coming to mind). Is that not the case for your instance, Hugh?

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/23/12 9:27am
Msg #415776

Re: Not being a wise guy, but once you have established their

If a state does not clearly define what "personally known" means, we could look to a national document to understand what the phrase is generally thought to mean. The Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, in its prefatory notes, says "If an individual is not personally known to the notarial officer, the individual must provide satisfactory evidence of the individual’s identity, which may be through the use of an identification credential or by means of an oath or affirmation of a credible witness (Section 7(b))."

This may be viewed at

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/ulona/2010final.htm

Reply by HisHughness on 3/23/12 9:30am
Msg #415777

Re: Not being a wise guy, but once you have established their

That is often, though not always, the true in an acknowledgement. I have never seen that phrasing used in the body of the document itself.

Reply by Les_CO on 3/23/12 9:42am
Msg #415779

I change nothing in the body of the documents. I view my job to be an impartial witness of the signatures of those signing.

Reply by LKT/CA on 3/23/12 5:50pm
Msg #415862

I agree with Hugh

CA used to have "or personally known to me" in the acknowledgment wording. Then they removed it entirely and what's left is "proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence" so I agree with Hugh's view that personally known presupposes some prior knowledge of the signer. I don't believe "personally known to me" refers to the person I just met at the appointment. In CA, we cannot notarize signatures to statements we know are false - and "personally known to me" in the body of a document is FALSE if I've never met the person BEFORE the notary service appointment. Therefore, I would strike through that statement (and initial) in the body of a document from a STRANGER. Otherwise, I am notarizing a signature to a false statement, which is against CA notary law.

If there's an *or* as in "or personally known to me", then there's no need to strike through the wording. If no *or* exists, then that phrase is crossed out and initialed. JMHO