Posted by Travis Chow on 2/27/13 12:19pm
Msg #458167

Question for the board

Long time reader, first time poster.

Had a simple job yesterday. Traveled to attorney's office in Los Angeles, the document was "Release of All Claims" in his wife's name and required a Jurat. He asked me to notarized, I refused becasue 1. his wife already signed it, and 2. she was not even at the location. He was mad, printed a blank unsigned version, signed it himself and asked me to notarized it. I did a Jurat for his name and signature, he provided a valid Georgia Drivers License. The document was in his wife's name with no mention of him. Was it wrong for me to notarize the document with his signature? All thoughts appriciated, Thanks!

Reply by JPH13/MO on 2/27/13 12:58pm
Msg #458176

If the new version showed his signature and the signature line didn't mention his wife's name, all you did was notarize his signature, which is legal. However, did you administer an oath or affirmation that mentioned something like "the information contained in this document is true, to the best of your knowledge and belief", etc.? Without seeing the wording of the document, I don't know if it was worded in such a way that his signing it would accomplish anything or that he could swear/affirm it to be true... I'm not an attorney, but it doesn't sound to me like him signing it would do any good.

Reply by Travis Chow on 2/27/13 1:05pm
Msg #458177

Thank you for your quick response, her name was not on the signature block, and his signature matched his ID, I did ask him to affirm to the truthfulness of the information within the document, and he answered in the affirmative.

Reply by AngelaV/CA on 2/27/13 1:10pm
Msg #458181

In my opinion, no, it was not wrong to do the jurat for him. When I notarize for corporate clients the document names the company but rarely my client, the officer signing the document. California notaries cannot verify the capacity of the signer nor the legality of the document, only the identity and signature of the signer. For all you know, your client may also have his wife's signature notarized on a separate jurat (she can simply re-sign the document in front of a notary and I would have offered that option). That being said, in this instance, I would have had him print his name on the document underneath where he was signing, and completely fill out your jurat form describing the document it is attached to. Hope this helps.

Reply by Travis Chow on 2/27/13 1:25pm
Msg #458187

Thank you for your quick response, appriciate it. Will have to post more often.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/27/13 1:29pm
Msg #458189

Travis, as long as it was a jurat, you're fine. There is no requirement that the person swearing/affirming the contents of a document be named in the document.

Reply by KODI/CA on 2/27/13 3:22pm
Msg #458224

Am I missing something here?

The original document was in his wife's name. The reprinted blank unisgned version of the document was in his wife's name with no mention of him. How could he swear that the document was a "true and correct" statement? Please, someone enlighten me.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/27/13 4:03pm
Msg #458245

Re: Am I missing something here?

I'm a little confused, too. In his second post, he said her name was not on the signature block. Could it be that her name was in the body of the document and that HE was the one signing off on all claims to HER? I'm visualizing a Quit Claim possibly? Regardless, Travis, you only ever notarize the signature of the person who signs the document (and personally appears before you, of course), whose name is usually typed under the signature line.

Reply by Stoli on 2/27/13 4:54pm
Msg #458252

Marian - Can you take it from here?

Marian has written about similar, though different, situations on several occasions, and though her exact words escape me at the moment, I’ll come as close to the essence of her message as possible. Maybe she will join in with her own exact explanation.

(1) The notary is not responsible for the content of the document;

(2) If a document on its face is illegal, notarizing it doesn’t make the document legal.

If an acknowledgment is attached, the signer represents to the notary that the signer acted in their authorized capacity to sign the document; however, the document does not need to be signed in the presence of the notary. Subscribing witness comes to mind but is a highly improbable situation for most of us.

If a jurat is attached, the signer takes the oath and proves identity to the notary.

In any event, if the signer perjures himself, it is not the responsibility of the notary who simply identified the signer and gave the oath.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/27/13 5:46pm
Msg #458272

Re: Marian - Can you take it from here?

I mentioned above that as long as it is a jurat there is no requirement that the person who is having their signature notarized be "described" in the document. That only applies to acknowledgments, and even then there is a LOT of wiggle room if the person simply claims to have the capacity to sign for somebody... say in cases where there is an attorney-in-fact signing. Since, by CA law, we are not allowed to "determine or certify" that capacity... then we have to take them at their word.

If this guy wants to swear to the contents of a document, that's all good and fine. Does that mean that whoever wanted the document signed and notarized by his wife will accept it? Who knows?? That's beyond the scope of our job and isn't our responsibility. The document might very well end up being rejected because the wrong person signed it... but again, that's not the notary's fault.

Katrina is right with what she noted above. With a jurat, the responsibility is on the signer. Note that our notarial certificates with a jurat do not contain the PoP wording? That's because it's the signer who is under oath.

Reply by rengel/CA on 2/27/13 5:42pm
Msg #458268

My take on this as a paralegal.

I am making a HUGE assumption here, but since it was an attorney, I'm thinking he represented the wife in a personal injury matter and there was a settlement. The insurance company always sends a Release of All Claims to ensure that the injured party cannot make any further claims after the settlement is paid off.

We always have the client sign these, but I'm thinking that the attorney can sign for his client (wife)

My .02

Reply by rengel/CA on 2/27/13 5:43pm
Msg #458269

Need to add...

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice,

yada yada yada