Posted by Marian_in_CA on 10/20/12 7:39pm
Msg #439420

'Taking Depositions' vs Jurats

Had an interesting conversation today and thought I'd ask what some of you thought os this because I've got to think about it.

GOogle this Form: Texas VTR-262

It's a Texas DMV form, entitled 'Affidavit of Heirship for a Motor Vehicle'. Now, CA notaries will look at this and probably have a coronary. So.... tthat's who I'm really looking for input from here.

One of our duties is to take depositions and sworn statements. So, we know that we have our jurat certificates as it applies to sworn statements. Our handbook sets out depositions specifically from affidavits, oaths and affirmations... and, in fact, we're allowed to charge more for the service.

So, today I was JUST an observer at an attorney's office. It wasn't a UPS store... but an office where another notary was at. It was one of those offices where lot of independent attorneys kind of share space and meet clients. Anyway, this guy comes in with this form noted above. They got in to a big discussion about the form, and the guy said, "I can't get any notary to handle this for me. Will you stamp it for me?"

She looks at it , and she says, "Sure, it's actually a deposition with a sworn statement, so it's a little different. That will cost $30.00." The guy says, "Okay, whatever."

I did not say a WORD. Only because I didn't know exactly what was happening and I wanted to research the form first. It occurred to me that I'd seen this form before.

The reason she charged the guy $30 was $20 for "taking" the deposition --- or filling in the blanks, $5 for the oath and $5 for the deposition certificate -- not a jurat certificate, but a deposition certificate.


SO here's my question to CA NOtaries.... if somebody brought this form to you, what would YOU do?

Reply by BrendaTx on 10/20/12 8:29pm
Msg #439421

Not a CA notary but just for the record, almost all affidavits in Texas that are drafted by attorneys have t "deposes" or "deposed" in them.

It is not a deposition, imho. Also, I would have to add the name of the affiant to the Jurat...to fix it. I suppose that a CA notary would need to add his or her name plus the name of the affiant to a jurat.

If I saw someone charge $30 to notarize this document, I would send a copy to the SoS and ask them if that was the right fee and explain what I saw. Not to get that person into trouble, but to hopefully get them help on how to understand the difference between a deposition and an affidavit.

Reply by HisHughness on 10/20/12 8:58pm
Msg #439423

This is naught but an affidavit

As Brenca noted, lawyers tend to drop "deposes and says" into affidavits. Essentially, to depose someone is simply to take their testimony under oath; oral testimony is not required. In practice, when a lawyer says he is going to depose someone, though, it means he will be questioning a witness under oath and the testimony will be transcribed.

I don't see why any notary, whether in Texas, California, or Llandudno, Wales, would have a problem notarizing it.

Reply by Buddy Young on 10/20/12 9:31pm
Msg #439426

I would do it. I would just have to attach a California compliant jurat. I don't see it as any different than any other Jurat we execute.

Reply by Gregory/CA on 10/20/12 10:31pm
Msg #439436

I don't see this form as a deposition but merely a Jurat and would proceed, as such, using the approved California language.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/20/12 10:41pm
Msg #439439

That's my take on it, as well, of course. Just an affidavit, not a deposition. It seemed odd that this person would say it was a deposition AND she filled the whole thing out for him, too, including all of the facts as he dictated them to her. On the plus side she did issue an oath.

The wording I think that may throw people off is how it's integrated with the "before me, the undersign authority..." bit It's not something we see a lot in CA. The statement and the jurat certificate are usually two distinct elements. I see this integrated format a lot in out of state documents.

Although in this particular case it is worded rather benignly. I've seen others that are worded much more ridiculously where in is basically has the notary swearing to the information and not the affiant.