Posted by Elaine IAA on 5/1/12 5:28pm
Msg #419514

POA -- unfamiliar notarial wording!

This is the first time I have run into a document with substantial extra wording thrown into an acknowledgment/jurat ... I am hoping a California notary out there can help me.

I am a California Notary, have been for 30+ years but only sign a dozen or so documents a year (work for a private school on top of a mountain). The school allows and encourages employees to use my notarial services for non-work related documents.

A teacher has come to me with a POA prepared by an Oklahoma attorney and headed back to Oklahoma. The Notarial wording says:
"Before me, the undersigned authority, on this ___ day of ___, 2012, personally appeared JANE SMITH, (principal) and ________________ and __________________, (witnesses) whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument in their respective capacities, and all of said persons being by me duly sworn, the principal declared to me and to the said witnesses in my presence that the instrument is her power of attorney, and that the principal has willingly and voluntarily made and executed it as her free act and deed of the fincipal for the purposes therein expressed, and the witnesses declared to me that they were each eighteen (18) years of age or over, and that neither of them is related to the principal by blood or marriage, or related to the attorney-in-fact by blood or marriage."

It is not an acknowledgment as it requires all persons to be sworn, nor a jurat as it does not state subscribed in my presence ... it is kind of a combination, along with 3 affirmations.

Can I even do this? What is it called? Thanks in advance for any advice you might have.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/12 5:38pm
Msg #419515

Elaine... if it's a jurat (as it is because it is a sworn statement) then you cannot use it, period. All jurats done in California must adhere to specific wording.

You need to staple (staple now required in CA) a loose jurat, or if there is room stamp or write the jurat wording on the document.

I have stamps that I use when I attach loose forms that refer to the state code in case they have questions as to why I didn't use their provided wording.

http://www.highdesertnotary.com/images/attachstamps.jpg

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/12 5:42pm
Msg #419516

BUT... that said.... yes, this is a WEIRD one.

In this case, I'd probably call the attorney and let him/her know that California has pretty specific requirements for notaries and you are not allowed to certify all of those things he/she is asking you to do.

Usually a simple rewrite of the document fixes it.

Reply by Elaine IAA on 5/1/12 5:43pm
Msg #419517

Thank you! That is actually what I thought, but I have never run across this situation before (usually other jurats have too FEW words!).

It is my opinion that I need a page with three separate (CA worded) jurats, one for the principal and one for each of the witnesses ... thoughts?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/12 5:46pm
Msg #419518

I don't see why you can put all three individuals on the same certificate.

Reply by Elaine IAA on 5/1/12 5:48pm
Msg #419519

Marian ... did you mean "I don't see why you -can't- put all three individuals on the same certificate" ?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/1/12 5:49pm
Msg #419520

Whoops... yes, that's what I meant! I have the flu...

I'm surprised I can even spell my name today.

Reply by Elaine IAA on 5/1/12 5:53pm
Msg #419521

Re: Whoops... yes, that's what I meant! I have the flu...

again, thank you so much!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/12 7:05pm
Msg #419525

This looks like a self-proving affidavit such as you'd see

at the end of a will - the principal is acknowledging that they're signing as their free act and deed and the witnesses are acknowledging their ability to act as impartial witnesses and their non-relationship to the signer.

This is truly just a very wordy acknowledgement. I don't see them swearing to anything...just acknowledging certain facts.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/12 7:07pm
Msg #419527

I read it again...I now see the "being duly sworn"

I'd line through that and just have them "declare"...

JMO

Reply by Elaine IAA on 5/1/12 7:57pm
Msg #419531

Re: I read it again...I now see the "being duly sworn"

The biggest problem is that it is not standard CA wording, either for a jurat or for an acknowledgment. Since it seems to want them sworn, and that is unquestionably a jurat, I think my only option is to attach a CA jurat form and have them each sign before me and swear to what they have already said in the document.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 5/1/12 8:03pm
Msg #419532

Your standard CA jurat is not going to accomplish

what they want done. If it's an ack you can use an out-of-state form as long as it doesn't require you to do something prohibited by CA law (like certify capacity).

I'd refer this signer back to the document preparer and maybe have that person call me to work it out. I think I see what they're trying to accomplish with this ack but they have to try to do it in a way where YOU can sign off on it - like revise the doc with 2 or 3 certs with proper wording...

good luck.

Reply by A S Johnson on 5/2/12 9:40am
Msg #419561

I'm confrused. If the grantor of this Power of Attorney is living in California, why are we using wording from Oklahoma? A answer that comes to my mind is it from Pre-Paid Legal out of Ada Oklahoma. In many cases Pre-Paid Legal Has a contract with a local Attorney who should have prepared it asto California law.
I'm would think California notary Law/Rules require the the Notary make certain the signer understands what the are siging before the Notary act.

Reply by ikando on 5/2/12 10:38am
Msg #419578

Since I'm in Oklahoma, I can tell you that it's the wild west here when it comes to notary verbiage and attempts to "simplify" things. I've seen this kind of wording before, and as mentioned, it may be a Pre-Paid Legal (now called Legal Shield) thing, but I don't know for sure. It is definitely not wording approved by the statutes.

Anyway, all the advise given is good, and I would have the person who brought the document to you contact the entity who wants it signed. That entity may have no idea what they're asking for, and may have just picked something up from other docs. If that originating entity cannot improve the document for you to be able to notarize it, then I would attach the Jurat (because the signers are being sworn to) to the document. In my experience, you may have all signers listed on one Jurat, or if you feel more comfortable, do three separately, preferably on the same page to reduce filing fees.

BTW, in Oklahoma, stapling of attachments is not required, and can present problems for filing. However, I would definitely note the attachment(s) are to be included as part of the document.

Reply by Elaine IAA on 5/2/12 10:47am
Msg #419582

The sending entity has no clue ... keeps telling me I can do things that are illegal in California. I have prepared a form with three jurats on one page which notes the name and number of pages of the document to which it will be attached. It sppears that this is the consensus of opinion from what all of you (with MUCH broader experience than mine) have said.

HUGE thanks to all who have responded.

I have a couple of hours yet before I expect this consituent back in my office ... please feel free to leave more comments!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 5/2/12 4:41pm
Msg #419659

"BTW, in Oklahoma, stapling of attachments is not required, and can present problems for filing."


Well, that may be, but in CA, we're now required to attach with a staple... it doesn't matter where the documents are going.

Reply by Elaine IAA on 5/2/12 10:41am
Msg #419580

The documents were sent to her from an escrow company in Oklahoma, purportedly prepared by an attorney (in OK). I know absolutely nothing about Oklahoma law