Posted by NotaryGirl71 on 9/7/12 11:42am
Msg #433521
California Signing Agents RE: Notary Journal
The National Notary Association told me that I MUST collect a signature and for EVERY item I notarize....and that I MUST write all of the persons info EACH time (can't use dito marks). As signing agents know when signing loan docs this can entail a person signing and you filling out all their info 10 times per borrower (depending on the lender)
I can't find this requirement ANYWHERE in the California notary Handbook...but the NNA swears to this. I even just took my notary class (will be on my 3rd commission soon) and the instructor who has been a Notary (not a signing agent) for a WHOLE TWO YEARS told me this too!
I have been a signing agent since 2006 and since 2007 I have been using the Notary Rotary notary journal and only having the person sign ONCE and fill out their info ONCE but I mark everything that is notarized in the book...I LOVE the Notary Rotary Journal.
Now my question to California signin agents is, "Which way is the lawful way to do this?"...and if you say it's the NNA's way, please tell me what page in the California notary Handbook it says to do it this way, because I have looked and can't find it..
| Reply by Clem/CA on 9/7/12 11:47am
Msg #433522
Been disused here before. The law states only that each doc must be able to be identified. The way I see it one sig for all docs is fine.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/GOV/1/2/d1/3/s8206
| Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 9/7/12 12:09pm
Msg #433527
The journal
shall include the items shown below. (Government Code section 8206(a))
Please note what shall be included in the Journal: Date, time and type of EACH - EACH official act.....follow notary law....
• Date, time and type of each official act (e.g., acknowledgment, jurat).
• Character of every instrument sworn to, affirmed, acknowledged or proved before the
notary public (e.g., deed of trust).
• The signature of each person whose signature is being notarized.
• A statement that the identity of a person making an acknowledgment or taking an oath
or affirmation was based on “satisfactory evidence” pursuant to Civil Code section 1185.
If satisfactory evidence was based on:
1. Paper identification, the journal shall contain the type of identifying document, the
governmental agency issuing the document, the serial or identifying number of the document,
and the date of issue or expiration of the document;
2. A single credible witness personally known to the notary public, the journal shall contain
the signature of the credible witness or the type of identifying document, the governmental
agency issuing the document, the serial or identifying number of the document, and the date
of issue or expiration of the document establishing the identity of the credible witness; or
3. Two credible witnesses whose identities are proven upon the presentation of satisfactory
evidence, the journal shall contain the signatures of the credible witnesses and the type of
identifying document, the governmental agency issuing the document, the serial or identifying
number of the document, and the date of issue or expiration of the document establishing the
identity of the credible witnesses.
• The fee charged for the notarial service.
• If the document to be notarized is a deed, quitclaim deed, or deed of trust affecting real
property or a power of attorney document, the notary public shall require the party signing
the document to place his or her right thumbprint in the journal. If the right thumbprint is
not available, then the notary public shall have the party use his or her left thumb, or any
available finger and shall so indicate in the journal. If the party signing the document is
physically unable to provide a thumb or fingerprint, the notary public shall so indicate in
the journal and shall also provide an explanation of that physical condition.
| Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 9/7/12 11:58am
Msg #433525
Notary Public Journal (Page 9)...not the NNA's way - it is California notary Law!
A notary public is required to keep one active sequential journal at a time of all acts performed
as a notary public. The journal must be kept in a locked and secured area (such as a lock box
or locked desk drawer), under the direct and exclusive control of the notary public. The journal
shall include the items shown below. (Government Code section 8206(a))
One sequential journal at a time of ALL acts performed as a notary public.
It doesn't matter how many signatures you notarize in a loan packet:
CALIFORNIA NOTARY LAW: Government Code section 8206 (a)
ALWAYS Follow California notary Law.
You should print out the Notary Public Handbook that is available. If you take shortcuts, where is your integrity.....?
Always follow California notary Law!!! I cannot stress this enough
Read the entire handbook about 3 times so you don't miss any important laws that guide us.
| Reply by NotaryGirl71 on 9/7/12 12:09pm
Msg #433528
RE: Stephaie Santiago
I have read the Notary Handbook many times...and I have a copy AND I also have integrity...thank you for implying that I don't!!!
I DO record ALL acts that I perform as a notary!
Thank you for NOT answering my question at all!!!!!!!!!!!
| Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 9/7/12 12:14pm
Msg #433529
I was only implying that as Notaries Public we must all adhere to California notary Law,
I apologize for coming across in a way that was not intended.
I answered your question. I am sorry you do not see my response as an answer to your question.
While it may take time to record all official acts, I so prefer to follow the law.
I hope you do not hold my response against me; I do believe we can continue to learn from eachother.
Stephanie
| Reply by NotaryGirl71 on 9/7/12 12:19pm
Msg #433533
Thank you Stephanie :-)
I am just looking for something that says that a separate signature must be collected for each and every item that is notarized. I don't see that in the handbook. I do see what you sent me, thank you...but I don't see where it says to specifically collect a separate signature for each and every document notarized.
I see where it says to record in the journal what you are notarizing.
Years ago when I was an escrow assistant at one of California's big escrow companies, EVERY escrow officer just wrote, "Loan Docs" in their journal and that was it! CRAZY!
| Reply by sueharke on 9/7/12 12:20pm
Msg #433535
I think he did answer your question, but you are angry and not reading the information. If you really want help, I suggest calming down, taking a walk, or some other method and reread the answers.
| Reply by Clem/CA on 9/7/12 1:00pm
Msg #433542
I can Identify EACH doc in my journal. Not rot journals work well. Thank you for your concern as to my integrity
| Reply by bfnotary on 9/7/12 12:15pm
Msg #433531
I use the notary rotary journal as well. I should probably order another one soon, before I run out of this one. This journal makes my life so much easier.
| Reply by janCA on 9/7/12 1:25pm
Msg #433547
I have always used a line item for each and every notarization and I get a signature for each line item. I believe Marian H. will attest to this and that it came out in a newsletter from the CA SOS either this year or last that ditto marks were not to be used and that every notarization was to have it's own line item.
I also use the MOJO. I now have about 20 journals that I have gone through over the past 11 years.
| Reply by garland/CA on 9/7/12 1:48pm
Msg #433553
20 journals in 11 years...
My last journal was filled up in less than 5 weeks using this method (NotaryRotary Journal)! That would be close to 11 journals in one year!
I used to do single line items per document notarized, then later with the NotaryRotary Journal went to one signature and marked all the documents notarized on that line. Then, based on recent discussions, went back to the single line item per document notarized. It is very time consuming and goes through the journals like crazy. Some loan packages can have up to 20 notarized documents (2 signers). Honestly, it seems excessive.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 9/7/12 1:53pm
Msg #433554
FWIW
... this topic has been discussed many times on NR, and it seems the most vocal proponents of the "Each" method are the first (and often only, anymore) on board with their interpretation of CA notary law. It's my observation that the notaries who interpret it differently don't really respond anymore because the extreme vitriol of the "you must follow my interpretation of CA law because I am right and if you don't, you lack "integrity" and you must read the handbook "three times" because you must be stupid, blah blah blah" becomes so deafening as to render any sane discussion impossible.
So I'm not going to wade in too deep here other than to say I would bet my house that the vast majority of loan signers do not follow the "each" method. And yes, I too, have seen escrow officers do only "loan docs" in the journal. This does not make it right or wrong. Just as it doesn't make it right or wrong to follow the "each" method. I've said this before, I'll say it again; I would hang up my notary tote bag before I would EVER subject a borrower (or myself) to individual thumbprints, signatures etc. for each notarized document in a loan package. However, please follow your own common sense interpretation. Just don't judge so harshly those who disagree with you - on either side of the fence.
And BTW, the SOS newsletter did not say every notarization was to have its own line item; it said include the "date and time of each official act." So if an NSA wants to interpret that as recording in their journal, for example:
3:21 pm. Deed, capture separate thumbprints and signatures;
3:22 pm. Signature Affidavit, capture separate thumbprints and signatures;
3:23 pm. Occupancy Affidavit, capture separate thumbprints and signatures;
3:24 pm. Compliance Agreement, capture separate thumbprints and signatures;
3:25 pm. Owners Affidavit, capture separate thumbprints and signatures;
etc. then, that's fine. I'm certainly not going to tell you differently; just show others the same respect. And if one day the SOS dragged me off to jail kicking and screaming for not writing 3:25 p.m. and 30 seconds for the Name Affidavit, I'll send you a post card.
| Reply by garland/CA on 9/7/12 2:15pm
Msg #433555
agree n/m
| Reply by notarydi/CA on 9/7/12 1:29pm
Msg #433548
I recently renewed my commission. I have been a for 8 years here in Ca. Asked the instructor this same question. His reply, ”If it is a real estate related document & you put your stamp on it, you must obtain signature & thumbprint for each document you put your stamp on. Yes, this is very tedious for everyone. Fine is $2500 for each missed signature & thumbprint. ” I also called CA SOS office & they confirmed the same thing. Yes, it is a PITA.
| Reply by janCA on 9/7/12 1:36pm
Msg #433551
Then that instructor doesn't know what he/she is talking about. You do not have to get a thumbprint for every document you notarize in loan packages. Only the required docs which are spelled out in our handbook, which would be in a loan package, DOT, grant deeds, quit claim deeds, not reconveyance, and POA's. I'm sure the SOS misunderstood the question,
| Reply by Mung/CA on 9/7/12 2:27pm
Msg #433556
NNA is a joke! You take what they tell & do the opposite
They are a for-profit company making a ton of cash off of (let's call them less informed) notaries. Get the NotRot MoJo and have each borrower sign ONCE. Have a blessed Friday?
| Reply by LKT/CA on 9/7/12 3:50pm
Msg #433561
Each notarial act needs its own line entry. It is important to adopt this practice for two reasons: (1) Anyone requesting a copy of the journal line entry for the ___________ <fill in the blank> cannot get that copy if 5 or 6 boxes are checked for that person's signature. (2) AND MOST IMPORTANTLY......you cannot prove how many signatures you actually notarized if several boxes are checked. If you invoice for a job and later try and collect, the client could be unscrupulous and accuse you of trying to cheat them. They can claim they only had ONE signature notarized and YOU fraudulently checked several other boxes to try and get more money from them. There are people out there who have no shame - and will try this.
The most recent assignment I had was to notarize the signature on 30 (thirty) identical documents at a property management firm. Suppose I only had the client sign ONCE and made notes that I notarized 30 docs. I invoice this client, try to collect $300. He could have lied and said I only notarized one signature, therefore, he only owes me $10. However, if I have 30 separate line entries, 30 separate signatures and 30 separate thumbprints (I always ASK for a thumbprint) - that's concrete proof that I actually notarized 30 signatures. For this appt, I was paid on the spot and yes, I absolutely wrote 30 separate line entries. It took close to 2 hours for this appt.
To save time, I completed one full line entry that included name, address, title of doc, date/time/fee, ID info, type of act, etc. - we call that the "redundant" info. For the next 29 entries, I just wrote the client's name and told him I'd fill in the redundant info later and he was okay with that. That is how you save time when entering line entries for loan signings - you write one complete line entry, and the rest of the entries for that borrower are just their name and title of doc. You fill in the redundant info later. No borrower has ever had a problem with me completing the redundant info later.
Any notary who does not adopt the practice of completing a line entry for EACH notarial act is only shooting themselves in the foot. One day it will come back to bite them in the form of a client who doesn't want to pay and will falsely claim they only had one doc notarized, therefore, they owe the notary ONLY $10. It will be the client's word against the notary's word. The notary won't have proof because they only completed one line entry and checked a bunch of boxes for which the client will claim the notary did that after the fact and is trying to scam them.
Don't bother filing suit in small cliams. NO journal proof of multiple notarizations means YOU, the notary, LOSE! All that notarizing and you get nothing but ten bucks because of poor record keeping. Journals are cheap so law or no law - make a habit of completing separate full line entries (no hash or ditto marks) for EACH notarization. You'll be glad you did.
| Reply by jojo_MN on 9/7/12 10:29pm
Msg #433597
Re: CA Signing Agents RE: Notary Journal, Not from CA, but
could you have signers write in your journal that there were x number of entries (in their handwriting) and initial or sign, after you check off the appropriate items that were notarized. If the journals are in ink, you wouldn't be able to erase or add. Just a thought.
| Reply by LKT/CA on 9/8/12 12:08am
Msg #433611
Re: CA Signing Agents RE: Notary Journal, Not from CA, but
I handle mostly GNW and find it easier to complete separate line entries for each notarial act. I want all the notes for that act to pertain solely to that act. There's not really enough room to differentiate the specifics of a notarial act when several boxes are checked. I have a place online I order notary journals from (not XYZ). I like hard cover journals because they're more durable than the soft cover journals. And journals are cheap so if I fill them up earlier than those who only record one notarial act, that's okay.
| Reply by jojo_MN on 9/8/12 6:14pm
Msg #433677
Re: CA Signing Agents RE: Notary Journal, Not from CA, but
I agree, for GNW it wouldn't be an issue. I'm saying that for mortgages, etc. there could be anywhere from 8-20 notarizations with two borrowers signing. That would take anywhere from 16-40 lines as an example.
| Reply by Donna Demarest on 9/7/12 4:41pm
Msg #433566
Gads. What a dilemma. I have contacted the SOS on four separate occasions with regards to this. Each Government Employee I have spoken with gave me slightly varying responses to this (let me also state that they advise me "I/We cannot interpret law", upon which I ask for their Commission Number [stumps them every time, lol]). I've decided upon a moderate compromise. Firstly, we do need to deal with this issue and document all notarial acts, we do need to insure our journals bear signatures and secure thumbprints for those documents as required by law. I use a journal similar to Notary Rotary (although I will state that Notary Rotarys' offers a slight variance and will, in the future order thru its site). I find that I am comfortable that by filling in each blocked noted document with an A or J, note the nbr of pages to the right, then in additional info/notes, indicate "swn" and now (my take) note the document and time of each, I have not added a bothersome burden to the signers, GNW or Documents, and I am (in my humble opinion) in compliance. If anyone of the public wants me to provide them with a line item, all is provided... to me, it's no different than our ability to go to our County Recorders Office and print 60 years worth of history on our neighbors property. Further, I agree with a couple of comments on this particular issue, growing a tad weary of self righteous anger and/or indignation of some (here, I am addressing all forums that I participate in). Our world is Not My Way Or The Highway, I Am Not The Notary Police... further, you asked a question and deserved to be treated in a civil manner. I so hope, within the confines of the comments from your post, you have found a response that satisfies you. Good luck and continued success...
| Reply by Donna Demarest on 9/7/12 4:45pm
Msg #433567
Who knows, opinions run strong. I feel my "line item" is accomplished by noting the boxes indicating the document notarized. To be honest, I'm beginning to think I should look for an attorney to date just to have him do some free research for me. lol
| Reply by John Tennant on 9/7/12 5:17pm
Msg #433569
I do the same as Lisa. I recently had a 242 page VA refi with 26 names notarized. I had the BO's sign and thumbprint each line, however, after filling in the personal detail on the first line I left the rest of the detail blank and filled it in at my convenience at home. BO's were very grateful they did not have to sit there while I filled everything in. And, I can prove exactly what I notarized.
| Reply by docs1954CA on 9/7/12 5:23pm
Msg #433570
I handle a quite a few Notarization's for a Lawyer friend of mine who's also a Notary.I used to do the single line for each document until he advised me that it wasn't necessary.This led to a discussion on the law, as I interpreted it one way and he another.He challenged me to prove my position by citing the statute that applied, which I really couldn't as it is not clearly defined.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/7/12 5:40pm
Msg #433572
While you shouldn't really listen to what the NNA tels you all the time, in this case they are correct. It's been discussed a ton here and I've explained it, in detail, over and over. This *is* in the handbook, it's just that some people interpret it different ways.
Read Lisa's explanation above... she's spot on.
Rather than repeat myself. Here what I wrote about it, WITH references and links....as recently as July:
Msg #427347
Everything you ask about is there.
| Reply by John Tennant on 9/7/12 9:19pm
Msg #433590
Thank you Mrian
| Reply by John Tennant on 9/7/12 9:20pm
Msg #433591
OOPs, Marian
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 9/7/12 10:09pm
Msg #433595
Looking back ....
When this issue was raised a couple of years ago on NR by a CA notary, among those weighing in was Harry [NR], himself, and it was his response (below/message #322505) that pretty much defined the issue for me then, and I've pretty much stuck with it since .....
"The Modern Journal was designed to support either approach. This has been covered extensively several times before. If you'd like to use a single entry for every notarized document in, say, a loan package, you're more than welcome to do so. We'd be happy to sell you 6x as many journals.
In terms of the law, nowhere in Section 8206 does it state how a journal should be formatted nor does it address the "one line/one entry" question. Rather, it states what should be recorded:
8206(a)(2). The journal shall be in addition to and apart from any copies of notarized documents that may be in the possession of the notary public and shall include all of the following:
(A) Date, time, and type of each official act.
(B) Character of every instrument sworn to, affirmed, acknowledged, or proved before the notary.
(C) The signature of each person whose signature is being notarized.
...
In our experience, when asked directly about the matter, most knowledgeable people at the Secretary of State's office have simply restated the statute, suggesting it is not their business to interpret the law. The only thing I've seen that's approached an interpretation was addressed in a recent vendor meeting. Check out the Q&A from the minutes (first question, page 4):
Notary Public Education Vendors - October 23, 2009 Meeting Notes
In our opinion, the Secretary of State should ask for a formal clarification with respect to single line v. multi-line from a proper authority. Maybe the AG's office? If a legal authority is willing to make the determination for them, and supposing they dictate single line usage, then at least they'd be the ones looking like wasteful, impractical fools.
Still and then, the point remains that the Modern Journal could be used either way. I'd encourage you to call their office and ask for a formal, written opinion on how to handle something like a loan signing if you are concerned. See if they're willing to put it on their web site. If nothing else, that would formally address a long-standing question, in addition to the periodic fear-mongering that keeps rearing its head."
Harry
Notary Rotary
P.S. It's also interesting to read the responses then - many by the same people who have responded to this current thread! To each their own, as the saying goes!
| Reply by jojo_MN on 9/7/12 10:37pm
Msg #433598
Of course XYZ is pushing the one line per notarization. Think about it...20 notarized documents x 2 signers equals 40 lines equaling eight pages. The more journals you fill up, the more sales they make. It is $$ to them. Sorry. I know this doesn't affect me since I'm not from California, but I feel sorry for all my notary friends that are. Not to mention that it is just one more way that they get more money from all of us.
| Reply by Buddy Young on 9/7/12 10:26pm
Msg #433596
Re: You are correct Notary Girl, it's not in the handbook
We have discussed this many times before and I myself have gone back and forth.
You get opinions on both sides of the coin, but they are only opinions. I only use one line unless I run out of boxes to check then and only then will I use another line.
I can't believe some people are so adamantine about having to use one line for each, when it's not even in the handbook. I think that if you do it either way you are in compliance with notary law. The opinions here are from very knowlegable notaries, but they are opinions.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/7/12 11:25pm
Msg #433605
Re: You are correct Notary Girl, it's not in the handbook
Well, I've seen opinions (as I published above) form the SoS where they make this more than clear that it's one line per act.
I think the problem is that they don't put this in our handbooks as being specifically clarified. I, personally, believe that the handbook is clear that it is one line per act. I fully see and respect that others interpret it differently.
FWIW, I have written to them asking them to clarify this in a handbook or newsletter update. I believe it's important enough that they do so. ALl the same, I 100% believe that it is 1 line per act.
This is especially true given what they published in the training guide/workbook, which is available on their website, and says:
See pages 24-26, specifically: "A separate line must be used for each document. For example, if a notary public completes an acknowledgment certificate on a deed of trust and an acknowledgment certificate on a promissory note, the notary public must record on separate lines in the journal that a “deed of trust” and “promissory note” were the character of the instruments with notarized signatures, completing each line of the journal, in full. The notary public cannot simply state that “loan docs” or “closing documents” were acknowledged. (California Government Code section 8206(a)(2)(B).)"
This was written and published by the Sec of State's office for 2012. There's no misinterpreting that.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-education-sample-workbook-2012.pdf
Honestly.... I wish they would just put that paragraph in the handbook. It would shut everyone up.
BTW, just because a journal may allow for multiple acts per line, that doesn't mean it's okay by CA law. I still think the MoJo is the best journal on the market, but I do think the ability to choose multiple documents is irrelevant for CA notaries.
We can use a spiral bound notebook for all they care... there are no rules that require us to actually purchase any particular journal. It can even be electronic if you have the proper technology that allows for it. We can even make up our own formats. The law only says we have to record certain information for each notarial act....so as long as we record the information per act, the method used doesn't matter. IMO that means one entry per act. A single loan signing is not one notarial act.
| Reply by Buddy Young on 9/7/12 11:57pm
Msg #433608
Re: Finally some proof, thank you Marion.
I printed that out and yep it's in there.
| Reply by Buddy Young on 9/7/12 11:59pm
Msg #433610
Re: Sorry, sp. Marian n/m
| Reply by LKT/CA on 9/7/12 11:58pm
Msg #433609
Re: You are correct Notary Girl, it's not in the handbook
Marian, I think many are blind to the more important issue: one line entry, one signature and checking multiple boxes does NOT prove multiple doc signatures were notarized. That can challenged and refuted. One line entry, one signature PER notarial act (i.e. ten line entries, ten signatures, applicable thumbprints) absolutely proves multiple docs signatures were notarized. Cannot be challenged and is irrefutable.
Let's see: Irrefutable proof vs. refutable proof.........I'll take irrefutable proof all day every day. JMHO
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/8/12 12:19am
Msg #433613
Re: You are correct Notary Girl, it's not in the handbook
Exactly... it seems like common sense to me. Anyone can check a box. But when you've got one signature (etc) for each individual act, then you've got definitive proof. I'd rather have that then annoy somebody for a few moments.
I can see, how, strictly looking at the handbook (and nothing else) one could possibly interpret it differently. I happen to disagree, but I can see how the interpretation can be made.
I just wish the SOS would get people to update the handbook properly and address some of these common questions. Though i believe they've already addressed it in other meetings an documents (including their approved training manual)... for some reason they just haven't put it in the handbook itself.
| Reply by linda/ca on 9/8/12 3:04am
Msg #433617
Re: You are correct Notary Girl, it's not in the handbook
Marian said in her post: "Honestly.... I wish they would just put that paragraph in the handbook. It would shut everyone up."
Marian, you and LKT need to shut up! There I said it!!!!! By the way Marian, what UPS store does the young lady you keep saying thanked you for "acting a fool" at her place of employment located? I think you just made that nonsense up. Please let me know her name and her location.
| Reply by Donna Demarest on 9/8/12 9:03am
Msg #433627
Re: You are correct Notary Girl, it's not in the handbook
Well, Linda, I believe we must think alike. Our handbook is made of laws; the scenario that is being referred to, I Feel, is a demand to Educational Vendors. Different things. I must say though, I enjoy active exchanges, and, I especially appreciate the dedication and seriousness that the members of this forum possess.
When we think about it, while the SOS is an honored, well regarded and respected office/position, she employs a Notary Public on her staff for all her required Notarial Acts. Let's think about this in a different context... until recently (wasn't it just last year) the office did not recognize the function or position of Mobile Notary Public, she's probably never even seen the newer Journals.
| Reply by linda/ca on 9/11/12 1:39am
Msg #433865
Re: You are correct Notary Girl, it's not in the handbook
Wow, Donna, If you are replying to my post, it is very refreshing to see that someone has insight on what is trying to be accomplished by a certain individual (or two/lol.....read my comments in another discussion above for the answer) who is adamant about her position being "recognized as the one and only way" by the SOS as the correct way to input information in our journal.
Couple of years back, my belief is that, the agenda was to make it mandatory that the notary test be given on a different day from the day you take the class. No matter what the subject....."that's why I feel they should have the test on a different day of the class." I asked her to "please stop," as it is inconvenient enough to have people take that mandatory class and then have to take more time out of their schedule to take the test , on a different day, is not cool to try to force on people!
| Reply by janCA on 9/8/12 9:16am
Msg #433629
Linda, uncalled for attack.
Everyone on this forum has a right to respond, and should do so civilly, or not at all. Remember, SS's and TC's are watching over.
| Reply by linda/ca on 9/11/12 12:57am
Msg #433862
Re: Linda, uncalled for attack.
Jan, Jan, Jan, you are correct, everyone has a right to respond and that was exactly what I was doing responding to (what I considered, in essence, someone telling me to shut up).
If the SS's and TC's read these post I would hope they understand the difference between knowledge and trying to force your unfounded opinion on someone else. I was not being uncivil.
I have a question....do you "really" believe the SS's and Title companies read linkedin; where you constantly say negative remarks about them? Remember you butted in here and gave me your unsolicited opinion....did you really want to go there? Be careful of what you post, some of us have good memories and spot contradiction when you least expect it.
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/8/12 9:25am
Msg #433631
Linda, I don't know how you can possibly take offense
to someone from your own state civilly pointing out the black and white rules to you. You should be thankful, not resentful.
I agree, this was uncalled for - maybe she touched a nerve?
| Reply by LKT/CA on 9/8/12 11:59am
Msg #433644
Re: Linda, I don't know how you can possibly take offense
<<< Linda, I don't know how you can possibly take offense to someone from your own state civilly pointing out the black and white rules to you. You should be thankful, not resentful. I agree, this was uncalled for - maybe she touched a nerve?>>>
Bizarre, isn't it?!?! Typically, the HIDDEN poster spews the personal attacks which definitely is a sign that a nerve was touched. Some people who adopt a particular SOP are threatened when it is pointed out that they're operating on a weak/risky foundation. Their pride gets in the way of improving their business model. Like you said, LindaH/FL, they should be grateful for a more solid/better suggestion at doing business but instead they are totally offended and strike out personally. Oh, well, they can continue operating as they have been until it comes back to bite them - which it will one day when a scam client doesn't want to pay them or the SOS audits their journal. JMHO
| Reply by linda/ca on 9/10/12 11:32pm
Msg #433857
Re: Linda, I don't know how you can possibly take offense
Hello, Linda, where is it written in black and white in the handbook? That's the point! What does responding to someone from my own state have to do with anything and I should be thankful for what?
Please make sure you have accurate information before posting! I am not about to go any further with the discussion on "this" post as I definitely don't want to invite another "tired" discussion on this subject.
You say my comment was uncalled for; I think your entire post was arrogant and uninformed. However, they are both opinions; correct?
| Reply by linda/ca on 9/11/12 1:00am
Msg #433863
Re: Linda, I don't know how you can possibly take offense
Sorry, this message was in response to LindaH/FL.
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 9/8/12 3:05pm
Msg #433653
Telling me to shutup doesn't work well....
Wow....
Linda, If I knew who you were, I'd happily share that information with you once I got her permission to share her name. I'll be going there again in the next week or so and if she's on duty, I'll gladly ask if she'd be willing to have you check up on me. I don't mind. It's a true story. I did open my big mouth to her, she DID refer someone to me and the next time I saw her in the store she asked for my cards. I'm sorry if that seems suspicious to you.
As for being told to "shut up" --- uhm, that wasn't directed to anyone in particular. It was a commentary about topic itself and how the rule should be more clarified in our handbook because there are way too many interpretations and opinions on how to do it.
Really, this should be a basic procedural question as part of Notary 101... not something that is argued over because of different interpretations. THAT's what I meant.
In the 2012 newsletter, the SoS made a point of pointing out that a "large majority of journals are not completed correctly." That tells me that 1) the SOS actually has standards for record keeping they check for and 2) Either they aren't getting the message across properly or notaries aren't paying attention.
THe SOS's office has published a clarification of this rule is TWO other places that I've found, which I have more than happily documented. I think their position is clear, it's just that, for some reason, the word isn't getting to those who edit the handbook.
Do I think having them issue a clarification would help? YES. No matter what they say, it would "shut people up" with all of the different interpretations - which I think are harmful because there doesn't seem to be a clear standard.
I've more than once stated how I feel the way I do, WITH SOS published documents to back up my opinion. I've also said that I see and understand how, by going only by the law and the Notary Handbook, why some would interpret it the way they do. I blame the SOS and the lawmakers.
If anyone has published paperwork that support s their opinion, I really want to see it. Really, I do! Just because I have an opinion doesn't mean I'm not open to hearing as why others have theirs. Maybe I'm missing something. I don't know.
The attacks are silly.
| Reply by linda/ca on 9/12/12 1:47am
Msg #434034
Re: Telling me to shutup doesn't work well....
"The attacks are silly."
What attacks? Marian, are you kidding me? You, the person who came on this site and bragged about jumping all over a UPS store worker in front of her customer. I am seriously starting to be concerned....I hope you are okay.
|
|
