Posted by CaNotary777 on 4/6/13 2:34pm
Msg #464750

Single or Multiple entries in the CA journal

Five subordinate mortgage deeds were signed- exactly the same. Can I make just one entry covering 5 documents, or do I have to make multiple entries , recording it repeatedly?
Does CA laws permit a notary to make multiple entries-- for instance am I allowed to enter Compliance agreement AND say Owner's affidavit ( 2 different docs) as one single entry?

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/6/13 2:49pm
Msg #464753

The Calfornia Notary workbook for 2013 stats..

c. Sequential Recording of Official Acts

All official acts performed as a notary public must be recorded in
the notary public’s active journal at the time the act is performed.
The journal entries must be made sequentially by recording each notarial act in order
of occurrence one after the other.
(California Government Code section 8206(a)(1).)

A notary public is guilty of a misdemeanor if the notary public willfully fails to properly
maintain his or her notarial journal.
(California Government Code sections 8206(a) and
8228.1(a).)

Reply by Yoli/CA on 4/6/13 3:47pm
Msg #464761

By following my interpretation of the CA notary Handbook, I choose to enter 1 complete entry for each document notarized. Each entry designates the instrument (i.e. DOT, Signature/Name Affidavit, etc.), the required verbiage (Acknowledgment or Jurat), Signer's name and ID info, date and time of action, fee and signature and thumbprint of signer.

Yeah, it's repetitious and bothersome. But, so is a fine and/or jail time - not to mention the ding on my reputation. When it becomes easy to take shortcuts, it becomes easy to cut corners and possibly cause someone some damage. JMO

Reply by HisHughness on 4/6/13 4:35pm
Msg #464767

Marian will tell you that you have to have a separate line for <every> notarization you ever do, including name of the signer and all the relevant ID information. She probably, in fact, would insist that you have a separate line if the signer has a two part street address with a unit number, and, based on earlier comments here, would probably require a separate line for each part of a city name if it comes in one or more parts.

Me, I think California law is ambiguous enough to permit multiple entries. But what do I know: I'm in Austin, TX, and everybody knows that Californians all have an irrationality gene. That gene may well have prevailed when writing the statutes that cover California NP journals.

Reply by rengel/CA on 4/6/13 4:53pm
Msg #464769

Totally uncalled for, Hugh

There is no need to bash your fellow notaries when they have an opinion that opposes yours.

Along those same lines, I am growing weary of the California bashing on this forum from those who reside in
other states. Yes, we Californians are fully aware that we are living in a nanny state, second only to New York. We have to abide by the laws of our State, you don't, so get over it. I can live anywhere in the world and yet I chose to live in California, so I deal with the ultra liberals and their, in my opinion, whacked out ideas. That is a choice I make. You choose to live elsewhere which is your choice.

So let's stop the California bashing, it is getting really old.

My .02

Reply by HisHughness on 4/6/13 5:52pm
Msg #464773

Re: Totally uncalled for, Hugh

One person's bashing is another person's tongue-in-cheek ragging.

One person's California bashing is another person's clearheaded acknowledgement that something happens to the brain synapses when you cross the Nevada border headed west or the Oregon border headed south.

You've been using too much starch in your underwear again. Surely you have something of greater significance to fret about, like why "public" precedes "accountant" in professional designations, but follows "notary."

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 6:10pm
Msg #464774

*snort*

It has nothing to do with what *I* say. It has to do with what OUR laws say, what OUR Secretary of State says, and what THEY expect us do. Everything I put here is simply a copy and paste of PUBLISHED documents, with references. They all point to the same answer. I'm sorry if people don't like the answer... but that doesn't CHANGE the answer.


Again... I still ask that if anyone has a written directive that says something different, send it to me. For now, we have the references in the official handbook to CA Gov't 8206 that describe all of the required elements in a journal entry.

In the Fall 2009, a directive was issued by the Sec of State and given to education vendors. The file was posted here by Harry.

See: http://www.notaryrotary.com/library/10-23-09-vendors-meeting-minutes-final.pdf

Specifically page, 4 where is says:

"Q, When multiple notarial acts are performed, is it acceptable for a diagonal line to be drawn from the first document to the last document in the notary public journal with a single signature covering all transactions? In addition, can ditto (“) marks be used in the journal?

A. Government Code section 8206 requires that the notary public's journal include all the information for "each official act." Therefore, each act would include the date, time, type of each official act, character of the instrument , signature, type of identification, fee, and thumbprint (if applicable) on a separate line for each act. "



In the 2012 Notary Newsletter (page 4), the Sec of State stated that, "Investigators report that, either as the result of a complaint regarding notarial misconduct or as a result of an audit, a large majority of journals are not completed correctly."

That means that the Sec of State's office has expectations of how we maintain our journals and they are AWARE that notaries aren't doing it properly. Again, they said a "large majority" aren't doing it correctly.

Reference: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2012.pdf


They allude to this, again, in the 2013 Newsletter, on page 3:

"Record, without abbreviations, all the information required by law to be recorded for every notarial act. A person may request a copy of one line of a journal page, which would be useless if that line is filled with indecipherable abbreviations. A complete entry is necessary to provide a complete record of the notarial act. California law requires that you record the following in your journal: the date and time of each notarial act; the type of notarial act performed (e.g., jurat, acknowledgment, certified copy of a power of attorney); the type of document notarized (e.g., deed of trust, permission to travel); the signatures of every person whose signature is being notarized; the details of the identification document used to identify the signer of the document notarized, including the type of identification (e.g., driver license, passport), the governmental agency that issued the identification, the serial number on the identification and the date of issue or expiration of the identification; if one or two credible witnesses were used to identify the signer of a document, the name of each credible witness and the details of each credible witness’ identification documents; the fee charged; and, when required, a thumbprint. "


Reference: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2013.pdf



Finally, we have the Sample Workbook, which is published by the Sec of State for educating notaries contains this on page 16, and can be found here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-education-sample-workbook-2013.pdf

"All official acts performed as a notary public must be recorded in the notary public’s active journal at the time the act is performed. The journal entries must be made sequentially by recording each notarial act in order of occurrence one after the other. (California Government Code section 8206(a)(1).)"



Also note in that same workbook, simply writing "loan docs" is NOT OKAY. Per pages 24-25:

"The character of every instrument sworn, affirmed, acknowledged, or proved before the notary public. The “character of every instrument” means the kind or type of document on which the signature is being notarized. Most notarial acts relate to another person signing or certifying a document. A description of the document containing the notarial act must be recorded in the journal in addition to the type of act performed. For example, most signatures on grant deeds are acknowledged. The journal entry for a grant deed will describe the character of the instrument as a “grant deed” and type of notarial act performed as an “acknowledgment.”

If more than one document contains notarized signatures, the notary public must record the title or character of each document. 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).)"


*******
Let's repeat this part from the above paragraphs:

"If more than one document contains notarized signatures, the notary public must record the title or character of each document. A separate line must be used for each document."
*******

Hugh, if you want to get nasty and hurl insults... direct it to the governing authorities who wrote all of the above PUBLISHED documents, not those of us just following their directive and not wanting to risk thousands in fines or jail. CA Notaries forget that willfully failing to perform our duties is a crime. Yes, that's California Government Code section 8228.1(a) and it INCLUDES a willful failure to maintain our journals, which is pointed out on page 64 of the workbook.

Reply by HisHughness on 4/6/13 6:53pm
Msg #464779

Re: *chortle*

It's depressing when I think of the productive uses all that effort could be put to, like, say, finding a way to make Diet Coke palatable, or inventing luggage that will call out your name when on airport luggage racks.

Or trying to figure out what an actual court or attorney general ruling would hold, rather than an SOS functionary who has never closed a real estate transaction with 18 notarizations.

You keep raising the boogerbear of criminality, Marian. When one makes a reasonable effort to comply with what most people would regard as a reasonable interpretation of the law that would reasonably accomodate the demands of commerce, you haven't committed a crime. You haven't even committed a civil offense.

There are far, far, far more reasonable interpretations of the California statute than that of the SOS which is, after all, only one interpretation, and a non-binding one.

You guys need to find an out-of-state source for your water.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 7:29pm
Msg #464785

Re: *chortle*

Thing is... what *we interpret* doesn't matter when our Governing authority has published the rules and methods they expect us to follow.

The *LAW* doesn't say we have to attach loose certificates with a staple. However, the Sec of State has published that they expect us to use staples, and ONLY staples. Knowing this, would you be willing to use tape or paperclips, willingly going against their directive, simply because you don't agree with their interpretation of "attach"? Great, go ahead... but not me. It's not worth the trouble. They've said to use staples. I use staples. They've said one line per act, I record one line per act. It's really that simple.

Fact is, the Sec of State has clearly said one-line per act is what they expect of us. They've never published anything, so far as I can find, that says anything to the contrary.

I say it's criminal Because our handbooks clearly TELL US that willfully failing to perform our duties is, at least, a misdemeanor.

When you know what they expect and then don't do it... that's willfull.

Reply by ananotary on 4/6/13 8:15pm
Msg #464787

OMG. Not this AGAIN. Hugh, there is no point in even trying n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 8:27pm
Msg #464788

Re: OMG. Not this AGAIN. Hugh, there is no point in even trying

Has anyone provided a written directive that negates what the Secretary of State published in the workbook on pages 24-25?


Anyone?



If you still haven't bothered to read it... it says:

"A description of the document containing the notarial act must be recorded in the journal in addition to the type of act performed. For example, most signatures on grant deeds are acknowledged. The journal entry for a grant deed will describe the character of the instrument as a “grant deed” and type of notarial act performed as an “acknowledgment.”

If more than one document contains notarized signatures, the notary public must record the title or character of each document. 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).)"


What part of that don't people understand?

Reply by ananotary on 4/6/13 8:32pm
Msg #464789

Oh Lordy. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 8:37pm
Msg #464790

Instead of insulting, how about you provide

an actual reference that supports your viewpoint?

That's all I ask.

They have been VERY clear about what they expect of us. No matter how I personally feel about the practice, they have been clear that's what they want...so I do it.

Roll your eyes and insult all you want. Doesn't bother me. I'm the one who has posted the references. Those of you who don't like it just have an "opinion" or claim to have a different interpretation. Fine... but they have CLEARLY told us what they expect of us. How do you justify not following their directive?

Seriously... I want to know.

Reply by leeinla on 4/6/13 8:57pm
Msg #464792

Re: Instead of insulting, how about you provide

we are over regulated in CA. We are the most populated state in the nation, and we probably have more mortgage fraud than other states. This is why we have these nonsensical rules that we have to abide by.

I guess I have a thick skin because Hugh's remarks don't offend me.

JMO.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 9:13pm
Msg #464793

Re: Instead of insulting, how about you provide

Hugh doesn't offend me. He's not even from CA and doesn't understand what it's like to live with the regulation we deal with on a daily basis.

It's the CA notaries who insist that the one-line per act directive is simply a matter of interpretation that worry me. THe ones who ignore the plain directive from out governing authority.

It's one thing to not like it... I get that. It's another to willfully ignore a clear directive/rule because it's not convenient.

The ones that offend me... though I'd say it's more frustrate than anything... are the ones who say they disagree with my interpretation. I seriously don't understand what other interpretations exist of this:

"A separate line must be used for each document."

Those aren't *my* words. Those are the words written in the training materials published by the CA Secretary of State. It's on pages 24-25 of this document:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-education-sample-workbook-2013.pdf


If notaries have issue with that, they should direct their venom to the entity who authored those words. Not those repeating them, teaching or directing people to them.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 4/6/13 9:30pm
Msg #464797

Funny you should mention that ....

Following is a list of states with the most mortgage fraud, according to a CNN article last year. Rankings seems to vary from year to year (many years ago, Georgia was #1), but FL and NY are always pretty much at the top. And you're right, leeinla; despite all its endless regulations, CA is always at the top, too. The introduction of thumbprints in notary journals - an idea that started in Los Angeles County - was supposed to put the big kabosh on rampant mortgage fraud, but obviously hasn't made much of a dent. Seems to me many of the notary rules from the legislature and the subsequent interpretations from the SOS especially are a bunch of bureaucratic phooey when it comes to making an actual impact. Perhaps the thinking is it could actually be worse... .

1. Florida
2. New York
3. California
4. Arizona
5. Michigan
6. Maryland
7. New Jersey
8. Georgia
9. Illinois
10. Virginia

Reply by ananotary on 4/6/13 9:14pm
Msg #464794

You have posted more times on this forum your

interpretation of this subject. You have a position that many respectable notaries disagree with. You are as much entitled to your interpretation as any other respectable, hard working, CA notary that is also following **their** interpretation of the direction of the SOS (who by the way interprets..).

Can't you just possibley AGREE TO DISAGREE???? Seriously, enough already. I know your position, respect your right to your position and will not defend my position because I know it is a POINTLESS effort.

I know, just (insert smiley face) show you in writing....blah, blah, blah.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 9:25pm
Msg #464795

Re: You have posted more times on this forum your

Thing is, I continue to ask a simple question... and nobody answers it with an actual answer except to say they "disagree" and then berate me in to saying that I just have to "agree to disagree" with them. No, I don't have to do anything of the sort. I will continue to ask until somebody answer the question or provides a written directive that is different from the MULTIPLE written directives from our governing authority that all say the same thing.

It's an honest question. How do you interpret this:

"A separate line must be used for each document."

With anything other than what it actually says? I'm not asking this to be contrary. I'm asking because I honestly seek a rational answer. And yet... NOBODY has provided one. All you want to do is say you"disagree" with it or interpret it differently.

Great...so how DO you interpret it, then?

Reply by jba/fl on 4/6/13 9:30pm
Msg #464796

You can lead a horse to water, you cannot make him drink.

Hang it up - all of you. You did your part (both sides of this issue) and it is archived for posterity. Refer others/newbies to the thread and let them know of the controversy and LET IT GO.

Reply by ananotary on 4/6/13 9:40pm
Msg #464799

Totally untrue

You are not looking for a "rational answer". You are looking for yet ANOTHER debate on this topic. You will not be getting that from me.

I appreciate Hugh's response (who happens to have attended a presumably accredited US law school and is much more versed in the legal system than most of us on this forum) and I agree with him. Guess what?, I am also entitled to my opinion and interpretation.

I have noticed that the reponses to the threads on this topic are dwindling. Thank Goodness.

Hugh, thank you for your logical answer.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 9:50pm
Msg #464801

Re: Totally untrue

Actually, if you bothered to read anything I've written, you'd know that I actually personally DISLIKE doing multiple entries. It's annoying and time consuming. Do you get that??? I'm LOOKING for any good reason to NOT do it. Thing is, I haven't found one. I keep asking for those who have that interpretation or written directive to provide one that is rational and that could be used in favor of the practice. I've yet to see one... and the only response is to just be mean or rude to me. That's not good enough for me to risk criminal charges for willingly going against a directive of the Secretary of State.

Hugh's opinion is meaningless because he's not from CA. Sorry, Hugh... while I agree it's an annoying practice and the regulation in our state is ridiculous, he fact is, because I applied for a commission, I've agreed to follow the directives of our governing authority whether I "like" it or not.

I don't like several of the things they ask us to do... but I do it anyway because I've agreed to follow the rules and I don't want to deal with fines or jail. I don't mess with that stuff.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 4/6/13 10:20pm
Msg #464802

Here's my .02 FWIW...not that it matters from lil ol me

in FL..but

#1 - Hugh may have graduated from an accredited US Law School as you said - but what seems to get lost in many many of these threads is that he has not been an attorney for a very very long time. I, personally, do not rely on Hugh for legal interpretations for that very reason.

#2. Marian has it in black and white - and presumably you, who are from CA, do too - why is that such a problem for you? I, personally, agree with her. Based on what she's posted from your handbook and from your workbook, she's right. It doesn't get any better than "one line per document".

Jeez people!!

Like I said - just my lil ol FL opinion

Reply by LKT/CA on 4/7/13 10:36am
Msg #464834

Re: Here's my .02 FWIW...not that it matters from lil ol me

<<<Like I said - just my lil ol FL opinion>>>

And that "lil ol FL opinion" is gold!! No wait, it's platinum!! Whichever one is better...LOL!

Reply by LKT/CA on 4/7/13 10:33am
Msg #464833

Re: Totally untrue

<<<You are not looking for a "rational answer". You are looking for yet ANOTHER debate on this topic. You will not be getting that from me.>>>

Marian did not start this topic, she responded to it - and her response addressed the topic. You, ananotary, responded to Marian personally, not to the topic. She has every right to post in this forum and you are not her father/mother. If you don't want to read what she writes, DON'T. But you have NO right to tell her to "agree to disagree" and go away.

<<< Guess what?, I am also entitled to my opinion and interpretation.>>>

No one said anything to the contrary. The problem is, you cannot handle being challenged/questioned on that opinion/interpretation. If you don't wish to be questioned/challenged - I suggest you not post it publicly. If you do, it's possible you will be questioned. Telling people to shut up and go away (i.e. agree to disagree) doesn't fly.

Reply by HisHughness on 4/6/13 10:32pm
Msg #464805

Let's try this, Marian

This is a line:
.........................................................................................................

This, too, is a line:
.................................../''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Both are unbroken linear elements.

My understanding is that the Almighty California Secretary of Gosh-Darned State wants to be sure <ALL> the relevant information is on a <line> in the event that someone requests a copy of that journal entry.

Now, Marian, use just a few of the brain cells you have used in developing your unflinching position to see if there is ANY way you can accomplish what the SOS wants to accomplish without making your borrowers sign and do a thumbprint for every document, and making yourself enter all the relevant information repeatedly.

To provide that copy, you are going to have to make a shield to obscure irrelevant information from the requester. You insist that YOUR shield would <have to> resemble this:

John Q. Irritated Borrower
.........................................................111 Frustration St.
ScrewtheSOS, CA

I think there is nothing in California law that prevents a shield like this:

John Q. Happy Signer
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''\.................................111 Interpretation St.
Time&NervesSaved, CA

The dots, of course, represent the information on the document itself.

Now, was that what the CA SOS had in mind when some $25,000-a-year minion who has no real idea of how notarization works in the real world decided to make your life difficult? Probably not. Is it an interpretation that a reasonable judge interested in how commerce operates could well support? Absolutely. If I practiced in California, would I feel quite comfortable following that procedure? No question about it. Would I have any fears that I would be charged with, prosecuted for, and convicted of a crime if I did? Certainly not.

Other posters are correct. This bone has been gnawed to marrow. I really was just ribbing you in the response that touched it off, and I'm sorry if it was taken seriously. Let's let this be the end of it.

On that other topic, the State of Texas has established a department to assist all the Californians moving here. It's called the State Department of Mental Health.

Reply by HisHughness on 4/6/13 10:36pm
Msg #464806

NotRot messed the post up

The dots should lead into a three-line address. NotRot made the first and third lines of each address flush left.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/6/13 11:01pm
Msg #464809

Re: Let's try this, Marian

"Now, Marian, use just a few of the brain cells you have used in developing your unflinching position to see if there is ANY way you can accomplish what the SOS wants to accomplish without making your borrowers sign and do a thumbprint for every document, and making yourself enter all the relevant information repeatedly. "

That would be great. Except, again, the workbook is really clear...at least to me.

"All official acts performed as a notary public must be recorded sequentially in the notary public’s active journal at the time the notarial act is performed. (California Government Code section 8206(a)(1).) A notary public is guilty of a misdemeanor if the notary public willfully fails to properly maintain his or her notarial journal. (California Government Code sections 8206(a) and 8228.1.) [...] 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."



Note it says, "on separate lines" and "Each line of the journal IN FULL."

How can you do "separate" lines of a journal "in full" if all of the documents are listed in the same line entry?


Look at it another way, maybe? It's impossible for two documents to be notarized at the exact same time. If the Deed of Trust is notarized at 6:10pm and then the promissory note is notarized at 6:15pm, they can't possibly occupy the same "line" because they are separate acts, done at different times. If the notary says that

If you think that the time is no big deal.... you are mistaken. The Sec of State has really pushed that fact that notaries a neglecting to write down the proper time stamps on entries. The past two years it's been noted in the newsletter. We are told we have to record them, sequentially, One after the other. Since we can't do multiple notarizations at the same time, we have to do just as they state... record them one after the other, in full, on separate lines.

These aren't my words I'm using here. I'm really sorry if this frustrates people, but as Linda said, it's in black and white... just like all of the other rules and directives they given us. Like them or not, we've agreed to follow them. Sorry. Again, I might not like it, either... but there's still nothing, as of now, that tells me otherwise.

Just like we have to use staples to attach loose certificates and write out stuff without abbreviating.

*sigh*

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/O-CSb3Xe06s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reply by Buddy Young on 4/6/13 11:33pm
Msg #464810

Re: Bah Humbug!!!!! n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 4/7/13 12:44am
Msg #464818

"Does CA laws permit a notary to make multiple entries..."

To answer your question directly, California notary LAW does not address the issue at all. It simply states what information has to be included. So you need to make sure all the required information is recorded. The law doesn't say what kind of journal you should use or how it should be filled out or that you can't include additional information in it if you want to. But if someone makes a request for a journal entry, you just need to make sure that all the required elements will be present.

As has been posted here numerous times, some materials that the current SOS office personnel have prepared to assist notaries public in this state, do address that issue in more detail. However, the Secretary of State does not make the law, the state legislature does. The SOS is responsible to administer the law and, in support of that function, the current SOS and staff have provided their interpretation of certain elements of the law in the various materials that have been referenced on this board.

However, it seems to me that our obligations as sworn public officials are to uphold the law, not to obey directives issued by any given elected official, which is what the SOS is. So far, I've been a notary public during the tenure of five different California Secretaries of State (including one "acting SOS"). The next one who comes along may have a very different interpretation of the law. Who knows. Should we change how we keep our journals every time someone new comes into office and puts their spin on things? That's up to each one of us to decide. I believe the key question is whether or not we feel we can defend our record keeping in front of a judge if any of our journal entries ever end up in a court of law.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/13 1:32am
Msg #464821

I totally respect Janet's position here, always have. However, the law itself *does* address this...to a point. It's CA Gov't Code 8206 and it details exactly what needs ot be recorded in our journals.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=08001-09000&file=8200-8230

It also specifically says that the journals entries for EACH act must be sequential. There is an interpretation, based strictly on the law, where it might allow for multiple documents per entry. That's where a lot of notaries feel this is okay.

The issue here is that while the law itself is not so specific... the Secretary of State *is* specific. They regularly issue directives of they EXPECT us to do as far as procedure goes. It is those expectations that drive the investigators and when they review files.

I've used this example already... but it's fitting. In the 2012 newsletter, we were told the following:

"The certificate of acknowledgment must be endorsed on or stapled to the instrument. Taping or paper-clipping the certificate of acknowledgment to the document is not permitted."

Similar language is used regarding jurats.

The law itself only says that we simply have to "attach" it. This is addressed in CA Civil Code 1188:

"1188. An officer taking the acknowledgment of an instrument shall endorse thereon or attach thereto a certificate substantially in the form prescribed in Section 1189."

And regarding jurats in Gov't Code 8202:

"To any affidavit subscribed and sworn to before a notary, there shall be attached a jurat in the following form..."

Does that mean that, if we feel like it, we can simply ignore the stapling directive because we don't like it? If we get title or escrow companies whining about the use of staples, are we going to simply stop using staples to make the title/escrow people happy.... despite the directive given by the Secretary of State?

It may seem like an annoying directive, and for some people quite inconvenient... but we still have to do it, right?

How many of you who put multiple documents in a single entry also ignore the directive about staples?


What's the point of all of the approved training documents and official publications if notaries are just going to ignore the directives because they don't like what they're told? TO me, that's just asking for trouble... they have procedural expectations for us, whether specifically outlined in the law itself or not.

Reply by CaNotary777 on 4/7/13 3:32am
Msg #464823

It seems I have stirred a hornet's nest here!

Controversy or otherwise, it appears Marian has provided the correct answer. I am taking home her opinion-- one line for every notary act. I respect other views as well, but Marian's is the one I'm gonna implement.

Reply by hodgy on 4/7/13 7:24am
Msg #464827

CA notaries deserve double the money I charge

With all of your journal entry laws and entries for every notarization and thumbprints you definitely deserve much more money per signing than I get.

Here in the "Live FREE or Die" state we are not even required to keep a journal - although I do much less an entry for every notarization.

Wow! Plus you have to test every so many years right?

I don't think I would be able to be a signing agent in CA. Too much work in my retirement.

Reply by Notarysigner on 4/7/13 1:06pm
Msg #464844

Re: CA notaries deserve double the money I charge

Yes you would, I try to limit myself to one a day. I',m retired and if I did more than one a day I wouldn't be retired now would I? LOL

Reply by LKT/CA on 4/7/13 10:16am
Msg #464831

Marian....they'll learn the hard way

There will be a court battle over an estate....a schlub he/she didn't sign and have notarized such-&-such documents and will claim his/he signature was forged and notarized on a doc - and the notary was in on it. The notary, having been subpoenaed, will have to explain to the judge how their ONE line entry proves that mr./ms. schlub notarized several docs. Incidentally, the judge works with a notary (one of the admin clerks in the courthouse) who DOES record each notarization seperately. That notary is now up a creek - because the handbook is CLEAR. Unfortunately, the notary cannot PROVE their case. Judges want PROOF, not unsubstantiated explanations.

Then Marian....YOU'RE subpoenaed in a similar estate battle and that family also has a schlub who denies he/she ever signed and notarized several docs, he/she alleges they only signed two docs and the rest were forged, notarized and the notary was "bought". Well, you present the judge with twelve separate line entries, twelve signatures and twelve thumbprints. The schlub screams, "The notary forged my name in her journal too, I only had two papers notarized, not twelve." Then Marian says, "Your honor, could I have forged twelve thumbprints, too?" Schlub is now sweating, shaking....at what's next. Yep, the judge orders said schlub to have his/her signature and thumbprint analayzed. Marian has concrete PROOF and is cleared of any impropriety...case against Marian is dismissed.

Separate entries, signatures and thumbprints <if applicable> is absolute PROOF. One line entry method, with its multiple checked boxes, is shaky/questionable. Therefore, why does any notary need a law to to demand that they operate in the method that shows absolute proof....as opposed to a shaky method that could be questioned? Oh, because they believe their journal will never be called into question - ever - and that they'll never be hauled into court. I kinda, sorta figured no one would ask for a copy of my journal entry - probably ever - until after 5 years of being a notary, I got a request from an attorney. His client's in-law was suing over the deceased relative's estate. Don't think it will happen to you? Think again.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/13 5:31pm
Msg #464851

CA Notaries need to red the above from Lisa...

It's very real reason why the "annoying" rules exist... as annoying as they may be, there are, in reality, some VERY good reasons behind it.

Reply by CaNotary777 on 4/7/13 6:06pm
Msg #464855

Who is Lisa here? I dont see her name n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 4/7/13 6:33pm
Msg #464861

Lisa = LKT/CA n/m

Reply by CH2inCA on 4/7/13 7:36pm
Msg #464870

A Notary's integrity...

I use the journal that we're talking about here. But I do make a line entry for every notarial act.

I've experienced situations that made me feel that checking the boxes was just wrong. The one that chapped me the most was when I made an error and missed a form at signing. UGHH, yes, mia culpa. I offered to go back to the borrower and have them acknowledge, and I'd notarize their signature. On my dime.

SS said why not just send us a completed certificate to attach? And check the necessary box on the already signed line? That will be easier.

uh...not for me!

Reply by ananotary on 4/8/13 12:43am
Msg #464887

"A Notary's integrity..." Really? Wow! A personal attack

on integrity based on a very grey area that the CA SOS (who inteprets btw). GIVE ME A BREAK!! This has nothing to do with integrity. A good notary already has integrity. Sheesh, this is ridiculous.

Reply by CH2inCA on 4/8/13 9:23am
Msg #464909

Personal attack?

I didn't mention you in my post. Not even once.

Actually it was all about me, and why "I" do it the way "I" do. And a Signing Service, asking "ME" to compromise "MY" integrity.

Personal attack, really?

Reply by Notarycat/CA on 4/19/13 7:53pm
Msg #466400

I have been following this entire thread with interest. I am also curious as to the multiple items per entry ruling. As signing agents doing loans, we all know how fat those packages are, and how long it takes to get them signed. I think the big rub here is what the law says vs what the SOS says. I was just reading the Government Code section 8206 that pertains to the notary public journal. The phrase "A separate line must be used for each document" does not appear in the actual code wording. I was also not able to find the phrase in the 2013 Notary Public Handbook. I believe this phrase comes from the educational materials that the SOS publishes for classes. So then back to the original question of what is the LAW regarding entries in our journal. Is it a law, or is it a 'best practice?"

Personally, I like the idea of multiple lines in an entry. Not so much for my convenience, but for the little old folks with bad arthritis that can barely make it through the loan docs. Of course, ALL of this could probably be settled with the use of a decent electronic journal. Then, every entry would be timestamped, described, it would be line-item, with a signature and thumbprint.

Besides, by the time this dispute gets resolved, the laws will change. *sigh*