Posted by EileenHI on 10/3/12 11:29pm
Msg #437107

California sale papers

I am doing the sale papers on a property in California. On the pages that need to be notarized they have the venue as State of Hawaii, County and city of xxxxxxxxx. But in body of acknowledgement it states 'under penalty of purjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct'. Will it be a problem if I cross that line out, or would you recommend that I replace it with my own acknowledgement? Haven't run across this before.

Reply by jojo_MN on 10/3/12 11:31pm
Msg #437109

I cross out California and write in the state. I missed one the first time I ran across it and it was sent back to me told to correct in that manner.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/3/12 11:39pm
Msg #437111

The last time I did a California property, I was told to leave it the perjury clause alone, if I thought my state laws would let me use it, or to attach an acknowledgement that is acceptable in my state, but not to cross out the perjury clause. The signing service told me there had been many instances of California recorders rejecting acknowledgements with the perjury clause crossed out, even when the acknowledgement was taken outside of California.

Reply by jojo_MN on 10/3/12 11:48pm
Msg #437113

It was a California tc that sent it back to me. I was told that I can't swear under the laws of the state of California because I'm not a California notary. This was under their direction.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/3/12 11:57pm
Msg #437116

I think I could swear under the laws of California even if I'm somewhere else, but I could only do so as a private individual, not as a notary, because I can't administer an oath or affirmation to myself. The next question would be, who could administer the oath? I don't know. If California went the way of Virginia and let their notaries act out of state, then I could, if I could find a CA notary.

But the California perjury paragraph doesn't actually say "swear", "oath", "affirm", or "affirmation", so it's kind of up in the air. If you and the California tc interpret it as equivalent to swearing or affirming, that suggests others might think the same thing, and adds weight to the position that no non-California notary should use those acknowledgements.

Reply by jojo_MN on 10/4/12 12:00am
Msg #437118

Sorry. Should have said 'under penalty of purjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct', not swear. Haven't done one for a while, but I cross out and change as instructed. Some of the newer forms actually have a space to write in the state instead of the word "California" populated in.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/4/12 12:01am
Msg #437119

Honestly.... all of that is irrelevant guys. Seriously.

All you need to do is tell them that CA law says that any acknowledgments, properly executed in another state, should be accepted.

It's CA Civil Code 1189(b):

"Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall be sufficient in this state if it is taken in accordance with the laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made."


Whip it out, my friends. Use it.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1180-1207

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/4/12 8:43am
Msg #437145

"All you need to do is tell them that CA law says that any acknowledgments, properly executed in another state, should be accepted."

How are we going to do that? We aren't there when the document is presented for recording, and if it is rejected, we probably won't hear about it for a week or more. Also, since we own neither the mortgage nor the house, we have no standing to complain; only the lender or homeowner can complain.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/4/12 11:20am
Msg #437160

I think the big issue is that if they come back to YOU and threaten you with issues like withholding of pf payment, etc.) because a California recorder incorrectly rejected your properly executed acknowledgment, that's when you most certainly *can* use this in your defense.

None of you should ever feel required to use CA wording in your certificates. You should be using the wording approved for your jurisdictions... assuming there is any, of course.

This is where knowing something about CA law can help some of you guys. Because we're so regulated, a lot of our nonsense filters out to the rest of the states. However, the rest of of you are also somewhat shielded from it as well, as this is one of those examples.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/4/12 12:00pm
Msg #437165

OK, being able to show a California recorder acted improperly could be useful for an out-of-state notary to negotiate with a client about still getting paid, and explaining why the out-of-state notary won't do anything to solve the problem; the solution is for the cliient to take it up with the recorder.

But if there is a way to feel comfortable that we are complying with our own state's law, and at the same time, REDUCE the chance of the acknowledgement being rejected, we should. I've been told I can do that by leaving the CA-style certificate entirely blank, or drawing a line through the whole thing, and adding an acceptable certificate from my state. So that's what I'll do.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/4/12 12:07pm
Msg #437166

Yeah, I agree. I mean, that's what we CA notaries end up doing for our non-compliant certificates, so I would think that it would make sense for others to do the same. It just seems "cleaner" that way to simply line through it and make a notation.

I wouldn't worry about them griping about paying for extra for recording fees. If that were an issue they should have done the due diligence and made sure the wording was compliant for the signing location before adding the wording to begin with.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/3/12 11:55pm
Msg #437115

"The signing service told me there had been many instances of California recorders rejecting acknowledgements with the perjury clause crossed out, even when the acknowledgement was taken outside of California."

You know what? That's totally wrong, and those recorders need to be challenged on that because California law states that any properly executed notarial act taken outside of California is acceptable within California. It is only notarial acts done *in* California that need to use that wording.

It is CA Civil Code 1189(b):

"Any certificate of acknowledgment taken in another place shall be sufficient in this state if it is taken in accordance with the laws of the place where the acknowledgment is made."

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/4/12 12:00am
Msg #437117

"You know what? That's totally wrong, and those recorders need to be challenged on that..."

There is a class of public officials I call the "$10,000 despots". If the amount at issue is under around $10,000, no one will bother to sue the officials, they'll just work around the problem or give in to whatever asinine demands the officials come up with.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/4/12 12:03am
Msg #437120

Give 'em an inch.... n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/4/12 4:13am
Msg #437125

As I've said before on this issue, my guess is that it was a mistake on the part of the Recorder. They're probably used to seeing a lot of ack cert's without that wording - and they're probably trained to look for it - from California notaries. They probably didn't notice it was from an out of state notary. Or, like Marian said, they just don't understand that they need to accept any ack cert legally taken in another state.

When in doubt, you can always replace the whole thing with your own certificate - although it might displease someone at the title co. when there's an additional fee for recording an extra page. But it beats having the whole thing rejected.

Reply by Buddy Young on 10/4/12 4:07am
Msg #437124

replace it with your own acknowledgement, California is supposed to accept that as Marian said. Not giving advice, just an expert opinion.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/4/12 5:18am
Msg #437127

I've had that clause included in preprinted certs

customized for FL - "under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida"

I cross the whole thing out - that statement is not a required component for an ack in this state.

I love it when companies see something and jump on it, incorporating it into their docs across the board, just because it "looks good".

Reply by Lee/AR on 10/4/12 8:25am
Msg #437141

I cross it out 'like Linda' because of 'what Marian said'.

Think CA is the only state with that clause, so everyone in every other state should be crossing it out.