Posted by Carolyn Nee on 3/7/12 4:06pm
Msg #414210

Request for a new Notary Page

I have just been contacted regarding a job I did last July for a California property. I'm in Louisiana. Their note said,
-------------
We need a new notary page for this closing you performed for us back on 7-25-11. I have confirmed they will take the same date for the notary. Please alter the blank one I have attached as you did on the one for the closing. There is a UPS label attached to return the original. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

We have to re-record as the original DOT was recorded without the legal.

--------------

What are they saying, I've asked but not heard back. I feel quite sure this is something I can't do and pretty darn sure that it wasn't an area on my part.

Thoughts.

Reply by Carolyn Nee on 3/7/12 4:15pm
Msg #414212

Sorry that should be closing not job and error not area.

This is what I just received from them:

We have to rerecord the DOT because thelender did not put the legal description on the DOT, per Los Angeles Countyrecorders office. We now have to attach the legal to rerecord the DOT sothe lien is on the correct property. The borrower does not have to resignbut per Los Angeles County Recorder we need another notary page from you andthat signifies there has been a change to the 1st recording. So the DOT gets recorded with the legal your original acknowledgement (the copyI sent) and the new one also.

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/7/12 4:20pm
Msg #414214

If it were me, I would send this message to your Secretary of State asking them if this is legal. It sure isn't in California.

What is it that you are "notarizing" on the new acknowledgement?

The only way I will use my stamp and signature on an acknowledgement is when a live person is standing/sitting in front of me and has acknowledged that they have signed the document to which I am attaching the acknowledgement.

My .02

Reply by Teresa/FL on 3/7/12 4:25pm
Msg #414215

Why would this need to come from you?

If the borrowers do not need to re-acknowledge (which wouldn't necessarily require them to resign the document), why can't someone in their office sign something that indicates what happened with the recording?

I have had mortgages re-acknowledged before because they were lost or misplaced and were never recorded. The title company typed a statement at the top of the first page stating that "This mortgage is being recorded to replace the original which was lost or misplaced." or words to that effect. I then had the borrowers re-acknowledge and I completed the acknowledgement certificate with the current date.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/7/12 4:49pm
Msg #414220

If the deed signed and acknowledged by the borrowers did not contain any legal description, it seems to me the lender is in a real fix, because it has no evidence of what property to foreclose on if that ever becomes necessary. It would be for the borrower to decide if they want to help the lender out of this fix or not by allowing the deed to be altered, resigned, and reacknowledged.

In reality, most borrowers have no idea how to interpret a legal description, but in principle, it is part of the deal and a borrower who knew what he was doing would want to check the legal description for correctness. If the borrower has two or more properties in same city or county, it's even conceivable the legal description the lender intends to add could be for the wrong property. It seems totally out-of-line to change the legal description without the borrower's approval.

Reply by Teresa/FL on 3/7/12 4:16pm
Msg #414213

They are asking you to provide a new acknowledgement

AND to back date it to the date of your original.

I would respond to them that you would be happy to take the DOT back out to the borrowers so they can re-acknowledge their signatures, but you would have to use the actual date your are meeting with the borrowers (not the date you met with them last year). Of course you would not do this for free, since this is not due to any error on your part.

They should know that such a request is against the law in California. I am sure a California notary will chime in and cite the actual law and penalties for breaking it.

This is one reason why I require that the legal description exhibit be provided at the time of the signing.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 3/7/12 4:50pm
Msg #414221

Re: They are asking you to provide a new acknowledgement

This must be a NEW notarization, otherwise based on the
Civil Code section 1189 (a)(2))
You would face a penatlt not exceeding $10,000.
For :
***False information on the notarial certificate, known to the Notary Public.
---Perdonally appeared: Did anyone personally appear before you as you are completing this acknowledgment?
---Did you identify anyone prior to completing this acknowledgment?
NO
and
NO
This request is so wrong on many levels
The Notary Public who willfully states as true any material fact known to be false is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000.
You must ask yourself one question:
Do you want to continue to be a Notary Public in good standings???
Be careful - follow California notary Law.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 3/7/12 4:51pm
Msg #414222

Sorry for typos.... n/m

Reply by desktopfull on 3/7/12 7:30pm
Msg #414240

She must follow Louisana law for notarization, not CA

law. IMO, the entire DOT would have to be presented to the borrower's and resigned with current date for this to be valid.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 3/7/12 4:43pm
Msg #414219

You can't do what they're asking; the borrowers don't need to sign again, but they DO need to appear before you to acknowledge their signature, and your notarization must show the current date. Since it's an acknowledgment, the date of the notarization should not have to match the date of the document for recording purposes (unless CA or that specific county clerk require it be be so).

Reply by Lee/AR on 3/7/12 5:33pm
Msg #414224

She's in LA...and that ain't Los Angeles

Still, I agree with the consensus of opinion...even if y'all are California-centric.

Reply by Sha/CA on 3/7/12 7:26pm
Msg #414239

I agree with Mike and Stephanie. n/m

Reply by ikando on 3/7/12 8:13pm
Msg #414245

Re: I agree with Mike and Stephanie.

And why did it take 8 months to determine the legal description wasn't attached? Is it any wonder the real estate financial industry is in such disarray?

Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/7/12 8:22pm
Msg #414250

Re: She's in LA...and that ain't Los Angeles

Lee, in the first post, she stated that the property is in California.

On the topic at hand, I think Teresa/FL had the right idea. They probably don't need it re-acknowledged, unless there's some quirk in Louisiana law that precludes this.

I think the issue is more one of basic notarial ethics and principles rather than something particular about California law. They have admitted that they made a change to a document that was signed and notarized on a certain date. If it's OK to later go back and change some aspect of a document without having it re-acknowledged, then what's the point in ever notarizing anything? You could potentially invalidate any document with a notarized signature on it. "No, your honor, that's not the same document that I signed." Duh!?

And to me, re-acknowledging means having the borrowers once more personally appear before you with the original document. If it's corrected, amended or added to, seems to me that should be signed again with a brand new acknowledgment (i.e new certificate) that reflects the actual date they personally appear again.

I think someone may be suffering from fuzzy thinking - and imo it's not the notary in this case.

Reply by Buddy Young on 3/7/12 8:44pm
Msg #414252

Re: Janet is exactly right. n/m

Reply by Carolyn Nee on 3/8/12 7:09am
Msg #414283

Thanks to all of you for your input!

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 3/8/12 3:15pm
Msg #414337

My knee-jerk reaction

is that the lender may be heading towards foreclosure proceedings, has an unsecured Note, does NOT want the borrowers to be made aware of the situation (by having a notary show up to re-acknowledge this) in the hopes of avoiding any potential for litigation/delay.