Posted by Patti Corcoran on 11/2/12 12:31pm
Msg #441841

first in a split signing - I have seen

other notaries who have printed "only" next to the name that that they are witnessing. Since I am witnessing the first borrower, is this something that you usually do, or do you simply put in the name/signature that you are notarizing in the ack block?

Reply by 1Notary1 on 11/2/12 12:36pm
Msg #441842

I've used the word "by" rather than "only".

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/2/12 1:24pm
Msg #441856

I can't see how "by" would be correct. Using the wording of the recommended acknowledgement in the original poster's state, Washington, it would come out:

I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that John Doe by is the person who appeared before me....

That doesn't seem right.

Reply by 1Notary1 on 11/2/12 1:53pm
Msg #441865

VT Syrup

Apparently, you've never performed a split signing before or you'd know what I am referring to. I was not necessarily referring to the acknowledgement itself, but rather any document that reflects the names of all the parties involved. I add the word “by” making it clear the name of the person whom signature I am notarizing (e.g. By John Smith). Instead of John Smith only. I hope I’ve been clear on this.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 11/2/12 2:41pm
Msg #441883

Re: VT Syrup

In a document that I'm taking an acknowledgement for, the only place I would enter the signer's name is in the acknowledgement certificate and my journal. So I guess I would need an example to see what you mean.

Reply by Barb25 on 11/2/12 4:01pm
Msg #441902

The confusion.

I would put by John Smith only. Well I think "by" would work. However it leaves is open to someone adding additional names. Where if you say John Smith only it is specific and clarifies EVERYTHING. There is no written right or wrong. It is how clear you wish to make it. I guess you can not add anything and let them try to figure out just who was the party whose signature you notarized. Do you want to do that? I didn't think so. I just got one like that and I was the 2nd part of the signing. I made sure my said John Smith only. JMO.

Reply by 1Notary1 on 11/2/12 5:08pm
Msg #441918

Re: The confusion.

<<<<<Well I think "by" would work. However it leaves is open to someone adding additional names.>>>

That would be fraud Barb.

Reply by jba/fl on 11/2/12 9:21pm
Msg #441961

Re: The confusion.

"That would be fraud Barb."

And this business has had none in the past?

Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/3/12 1:57am
Msg #441973

Hmmmm. With that approach, though, if you wrote "by Robert Jones" couldn't someone just add "and Betsy Jones" right after that? IMO, if the cert didn't have language to specify he/she/they, etc. like we do here in CA, I think adding "only" after the name of the one you signed is a good idea.

Reply by Frank/NC on 11/2/12 12:38pm
Msg #441843

Just out of courtesy to the next notary, I generally use a loose certificate for the first signer and thus, allow the second notary to use the certificate that is with the docs.

Reply by Patti Corcoran on 11/2/12 12:42pm
Msg #441847

Re: thanks - both good suggestions n/m

Reply by MW/VA on 11/2/12 2:38pm
Msg #441881

Yes, I've used that & crossed through the other name. I

do whatever I have to do to make it clear I only notarized for one borrower.
I did the 2nd part of a split yesterday. On most of the forms, if the names appeared, the other notary crossed out the 2nd name. If there weren't any names, they just notarized. I have a stamp made up for acks & jurats, and made it clear on mine that I was only notarizing for Jane Doe. My personal choice is not to attach loose certificates unless there is no other option.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 11/2/12 3:16pm
Msg #441897

When I do a split signing, I am only notarizing the person

in my presence. I enter the name of the person I am notarizing for.
The Notary Public will complete notarial wording for the signer they are notarizing for.
I dot tend to follow other Notaries Public in their practices for split signings.
I take the ID information for the person in my presence, complete my journal entries, complete the notarial certificate for the person before me.
Once I have completed my notarization, I follow instructions and forward as per directed.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 11/2/12 4:13pm
Msg #441904

Re: When I do a split signing,

my notarial certificate has only the name of the person who appears before me. In California, no need to add the word "only" as our required notarial verbiage carries the pronouns he/she/they, which I strike the 2 that don't correspond to the signer and also strike the plural word ending, i.e. capacity(ies) [strike the (ies)].

In the body of the document, no, I don't strike the other signer.

Reply by Barb25 on 11/2/12 4:15pm
Msg #441905

Speaking of split signings

I cannot tell you how nice it is to see notaries here talking about their concerns for the notary doing the second part of this signing. Making sure that they have the acknowledgements and jurats that they need to complete their task. That consideration is exemplary. I had a signing such as this last week where there was not one extra acknowledgement or jurat for me to use. Fortunanately, I have been in this situation before and it did not come as a surprise. So I was somewhat prepared. But like you when I am printing docs, it is so easy to make it easy for the second notary who does not have that advantage. Bless you all who do this.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 11/2/12 11:49pm
Msg #441968

I guess I am somewhat fortunate

As most of the split signings I have done have included *2* notarial blocks, one for each signer's notary. I can only remember about having around 5-10 in 9 years.
One split I recollect, as second notary, the first had put both signers' names in the notarial block, as if both signers had appeared before her. I think she'd made beau coup mistakes on the rest of the package as well. That was a complete resign, and I was able to recommend a seasoned notary from NR for the first part of the resign...and that TC was the first I remember to add 2 notarial blocks to the docs.

Reply by Barb25 on 11/3/12 7:33pm
Msg #442027

Re: I guess I am somewhat fortunate

I think they should always do that. It certainly is appropriate and would avoid errors even for a notary would should know but did not know how to handle it. In the case of the last one I did, there were extra loose acks in the package and the other notary notarized them "just in case" the TC needed them. How do you like them apples? I was told that is okay in Massachusetts.