Posted by Holly Reynolds on 4/20/13 10:14pm
Msg #466499
Clarification on acknowledgement
I filled out an acknowledgement on Thursday night. I was called tonight that it looks like I spelled the last name wrong but I believe it was my printing. What is the cleanest way to correct. I told them I would come back out tomorrow o review e document. It was with two credible witnesses so it would be hard o get everyone together. May I correct the original
| Reply by Harris Goldberg on 4/21/13 8:12am
Msg #466508
you may never correct an original without all parties present to initial.You never take it upon yourself to make these kind of corrections
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 4/21/13 8:42am
Msg #466512
Harris, parties do not initial her acknowledgement
That's the notary's territory only.
Holly, I could not do that in Florida - I'd have to go back to the people simply because that's the way our law is here. If you're allowed, in CA, to correct your certs, then can you line through the name they don't like and re-print it more legibly? Or are you allowed to issue a new cert after the fact without re-visiting the signers? Remember, the people don't need to sign again, since it's an ack - they can just re-acknowledge to you that they did sign it.
| Reply by Holly Reynolds on 4/21/13 9:32am
Msg #466513
Re: Harris, parties do not initial her acknowledgement
Hi Linda will I put it in my journal with his signature again
| Reply by Linda_H/FL on 4/21/13 9:41am
Msg #466516
That's entirely up to your notary laws...if I've read your
manual correctly and read the posts here correctly:
IMO if you're just making a correction to the existing cert (not sure if this is allowed in CA or not) you may not have to revisit the signers - you may be able to make the correction and note your journal that the correction was made and why. If you're allowed to issue a new cert without revisit, note that.
But if you're required to revisit the signers to do any of it IMO it's a new notarization and you'll need a new entry in your journal - they are re-acknowledging to you - AND your new cert will need the current date, not the old date.
Hope this helps. And hopefully a CA notary will read this and clarify what you need to do.
| Reply by Holly Reynolds on 4/21/13 9:44am
Msg #466517
Re: That's entirely up to your notary laws...if I've read your
Thank you everyone. I have learned a lesson to print more clearly.
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/21/13 9:57am
Msg #466518
"Print more clearly"
Holly ~ I know for a fact that my writing gets more sloppy, therefore less legible, the more I hurry and the later it gets. This is another reason I prefer to get docs with some time. When I have to generate a cert, I type in names, print and attach to doc. Makes it easier on everyone. This just my practice. Some people have great, legibly clear handwriting. I don't. 
| Reply by Notarysigner on 4/21/13 10:16am
Msg #466519
Ditto, I do the same n/m
| Reply by VT_Syrup on 4/22/13 9:45am
Msg #466595
Re: "Print more clearly"
Yoli, do you type, print, and attach certs when the certificate meets your state standards, and just needs to have the signer's name written in? Or only for the certs that don't meet your state standards. I only print and attach certs when the cert provided isn't acceptable in my state (and since my state does not have written standards, those certs would probably not be acceptable in any state).
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/23/13 11:11am
Msg #466714
Re: "Print more clearly"
Only when not compliant.
| Reply by HisHughness on 4/21/13 9:35am
Msg #466514
Re: Harris, parties do not initial her acknowledgement
Putting aside any requirements of state law, an acknowledgment simply states that on a given date a person appeared before the notary and claimed a signature as his own.
Again, <putting aside any requirements of state law,> there appears to be no objective reason that an acknowledgment could not be completed at some time other than the date the signature was acknowledged, and if that is the case, then certainly one could be amended at a later date. To me, that is no different than a notary appearing in court at a later date and swearing that the person appeared before him on a given date and claimed a signature as his own. The date is the date the signer acknowledged the signature, not the date that the notary <completed> the acknowledgment. This is especially true of an acknowledgment, where no oath is required; all the party does is say a signature is his. The signature itself could have been executed long before.
Understand, I practice in a state where the notary's common sense is still a component of notarial procedures. If a statute specifically requires a notarial certification be completed at the table or in the presence of the signer, then that would prevail, of course. Even in the presence of such a statute, though, I would see if there was some reasonable construction of it that would permit me to help the signer and the hiring party achieve their mutual goals.
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/21/13 9:37am
Msg #466515
Linda H/FL is correct --
In CA, a notary can correct a cert. Just like when they come pre-printed and include capacity. We can line through capacity (as we're not allowed to certify capacity) and initial.
Personally, I would request original be sent to me, re-visit signers and issue new correct acknowledgment. IMO, just makes for a cleaner process. This latter, of course, requires an additional entry in your Journal. New act, new entry.
| Reply by LKT/CA on 4/21/13 3:16pm
Msg #466543
Yes, you can correct a typo/misprint on an acknowledgment. I'd request the original before replacing it with the correct ack. I disagree with the view that it's a new notarial act and needs a new journal entry. The *act* is the witnessing of the signature itself -- the notarial certificate is *written evidence* of that act. Since you are not re-witnessing the signatures and ONLY correcting the cert, then there's no need for a journal entry.
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/21/13 5:23pm
Msg #466554
Re: Clarification on acknowledgement n/m
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/21/13 5:28pm
Msg #466556
Lisa ~ clarification
I posted: <<Personally, I would request original be sent to me, re-visit signers and issue new correct acknowledgment. IMO, just makes for a cleaner process. This latter, of course, requires an additional entry in your Journal. New act, new entry.>>
If I'm issuing a new certificate, to me, it's a new notarial act, therefore, a new journal entry.
If I were just correcting cert -- strike through misspelling and write in correctly spelled last name and initialing correction -- then, no, that does not require new journal entry.
| Reply by LKT/CA on 4/21/13 5:37pm
Msg #466557
Re: Lisa ~ clarification
<<<If I'm issuing a new certificate, to me, it's a new notarial act, therefore, a new journal entry....If I were just correcting cert -- strike through misspelling and write in correctly spelled last name and initialing correction -- then, no, that does not require new journal entry.>>>
Ok....we'll agree to disagree.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/21/13 5:41pm
Msg #466558
You should know by now, Hugh...
... that CA notaries public are not allowed to use common sense.
However, in an effort to keep the wheels of commerce and civilization turning so people can get on with their lives (which is basically our function as notaries), I would do exactly what LKT said.
By the sound of the OP, this was GNW and the signers have the ack. Have them return the original (which Holly would presumably destroy?) and she would complete another, writing clearly this time. I see no need to re-ID or re-sign; this is not a new act, IMO.
Or, if the receiving agency will accept the correction, line through unreadable name, rewrite clearly, initial and date and be done with it.
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/21/13 5:48pm
Msg #466560
Re: You should know by now, Hugh...
Sharon: What date would that new ACK - with the clear writing - have?
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/21/13 6:07pm
Msg #466563
Re: You should know by now, Hugh...
I think I see what you're getting at, Yoli .... but the new ack would read exactly the same as the one it is replacing .. only with readable handwriting, hopefully. It's not an ack for a new act... and it's not a replacement for a "lost" certificate, both of which, of course, would require starting over completely.
Nothing would change in the redo .... not the date because they're not appearing before a notary again. They're just exchanging an unreadable certificate for another.
BTW, I just noticed you blew my cover!! LOL.
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/21/13 6:26pm
Msg #466569
Re: You should know by now, Hugh...
Ok, then, GG. As Lisa said, agree to disagree.
My belief is that a replacement ACK, regardless of the reason/need for replacement, is a new act. Signers don't have to re-sign. However, they should acknowledge they signed that doc. If the original ACK had been damaged by spilt coffee or mangled in an opening machine and the destination party returned it to you, would you replace it with a back-dated one (to the original's date)?
Just curious as to how others formulate their opinions.
| Reply by HisHughness on 4/21/13 7:31pm
Msg #466576
Let's be clear what backdating is
***would you replace it with a back-dated one (to the original's date)?***
"Backdating" is when you place a date on a notarial certificate that says an action occurred on an earlier date when in truth it occurred later. It is backdating when you have the borrower sign a new affidavit he had not executed before, and place a jurat on it with the date of the original signing. Whatever the law in your state may require, creating a replacement certificate that mirrors the original, or correcting the spelling of a name in the original certificate, is NOT backdating.
A jurat typically reads:
On __________________, 20____ before me, Joe Q. Notary, Notary Public, personally appeared Joe Q. Borrower...
An acknowledgment typically reads:
On __________________, 20____ before me, Joe R. Notary, Notary Public, personally appeared Joe R. Borrower, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacities.
If you are simply creating an identical replacement certificate, and are not swearing the signer again, or having him again acknowledge his signature, there is no "backdating." The replacement certificate or corrected certificate states exactly what occurred on the cited date.
This in no way is intended to indicate that, if your state law prohibits replacement certificates, that it is okay to create one.
My personal view, expressed here often, is that state laws are rarely as restrictive as they are sometimes interpreted. The law generally wants to assist commerce, not hamstring it; that's the whole thrust of the Uniform Commercial Code, for example. Before I put a major kink in a signing, I would make darned sure that there is no way to do it simple so that no one is inconvenienced.
JMHPO
| Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/21/13 8:21pm
Msg #466581
Re: Let's be clear what backdating is
That's why the simplest corrective measure on this scenario would be to correct the original by lining through, correct and initial the correction.
Hugh, you state, "This in no way is intended to indicate that, if your state law prohibits replacement certificates, that it is okay to create one." What is JYHPO about the letter dated September 11, 2012 from the CA SOS to Marian Harmon regarding replacement certificates. To wit:
"(on CA SOS letterhead)
September 11, 2012
MARIAN HARMON
HIGH DESERT NOTARY
PO BOX 2330
CALIFORNIA CITY, CA 93504
Dear Marian Harmon:
Thank you for contacting the California Secretary of State with your inquiry regarding
duplicate or replacement certificates, and the process of completing a notarial certificate
and journal entry.
As you're aware, an acknowledgment is the notarial certificate attached to a document
when the notary public confirms the identity of the singer and the signer acknowledges
being the signer of the document. By completing a certificate of acknowledgment, the
notary public is certifying under penalty of perjury:
- That the signer personally appeared before the notary public on the date indicated
and in the county indicated in the venue heading.
- To the identity of the signer (based on satisfactory evidence); and
- That the signer acknowledged signing the document. (California Civil Code
section 1189.)
To perform an acknowledgment, a California notary public must:
- Examine the document for completeness;
- Confirm the identity of the signer (based on satisfactorily evidence) and the
signer's acknowledgment of the signature;
- Complete a journal entry for the transaction; and
- Attach a completed certificate of acknowledgment to the document or complete
the certificate of acknowledgment at the end of the document. (California Civil
Code section 1188.)
The notarial certificate and journal entry must be completed at the time the notarial act is
completed. Furthermore, there is no provision in statue that allows a notary public to
issue a duplicate or replacement certificate if the original is lost or damaged. If a notarial
certificate is lost or damaged, a new notarial act, as outlined above, is required.
Additional information relating to the functions and duties of a California notary public
can be found in our Sample Education Workbook located on our website at
www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-education-sample-workbook-2012.pdf.
We hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any questions, or if we can assist
you on another matter related to the Secretary of State's office, please contact us at (916)
653-3595.
Sincerely,
Notary Public Section
Business Programs Division
wdo" (end of this 2 page letter duplicated in its entirety)
Would you say this directive from the CA NP governing body allows "replacement certificates?"
| Reply by HisHughness on 4/21/13 8:57pm
Msg #466582
Re: Let's be clear what backdating is
***there is no provision in statue that allows a notary public to issue a duplicate or replacement certificate if the original is lost or damaged.***
JMHPO is that there apparently is no provision in California law PROHIBITING a replacement certificate, and as a consequence I would without hesitation create one if indicated and there was no harm that could reasonably be inflicted on anyone by doing so.
We've had this discussion time after time with Marian, who wants to regard the assertions of the SOS as graven in stone. Unless the California SOS is charged by law with issuing <legal> opinions -- and I readily admit that I do not know whether she is -- as are courts and the state attorney general, then her opinion carries little more weight than yours does. In any event, even if the SOS did have the responsibility for issuing binding legal opinions, a letter to someone does not constitute such an opinion.
When any California notary public is penalized for doing a replacement certificate where there was no harm to any person, get back to me and I myself will issue a revised -- albeit non-legal -- opinion. In the meantime, in my own practice I'm going to continue to do those things that are not prohibited by law and that assist my clients in getting their business done with as little hassle as possible.
| Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/21/13 7:33pm
Msg #466577
That's a loaded question!
But, yes, I would as long as I had the original in my permanent possession (such as I understood Janet indicated). And it's not backdating, which is when a notary attests that somebody appeared before him/her and on a certain date when he/she/they did neither. Redoing a botched cert under the circumstances as outlined by OP or in your examples does not require personal appearance, IMO.
That said, if the original was "lost," or "missing," there is no redo in that case, and the notarial act would have to be redone using the date the signers (again) appeared before the notary. Can't have two acks floating around for the same act.
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/21/13 6:20pm
Msg #466567
Re: You should know by now, Hugh...
Well, I think the rest of your post contradicts the statement that CA notaries aren't allowed to use common sense...
The OP said that she was going to go "back out". To me, that seems like the ideal situation. That way the notary can collect and personally destroy the certificate that has an error and replace it with a certificate that correctly reflects the notarial act that was recorded in her journal and signed on the date that the notarial act actually took place. Seems to me that any aberration here is in the fact that a simple mistake was made in completing the notary certificate. IMO, the borrowers wouldn't even need to be present (if the document, for example, was now in the possession of a settlement agent who was within reasonable driving distance).
I would feel much less comfortable about issuing another certificate separate from the document while leaving the first one in the possession of the document holder, as that brings up a whole different set of issues. If driving to the document holder was not an option, the next best thing would be to have the entire document returned so that the notary can then personally replace the old one with the new one and make sure there aren't any duplicates floating around.
| Reply by Buddy Young on 4/21/13 6:26pm
Msg #466568
I wouldn't have a problem correcting the original.
|
|
