Posted by Bear900/CA on 2/25/13 3:28pm
Msg #457707

Regarding separate journal entries in a CA notary Journal

Please don’t follow this information or try it at home unless you live in Texas!

I have been using the “Modern Journal of Notarial Events” (Version 1.01) that I purchased from Notary Rotary some time back.

If anyone is familiar with it, it has a single wide line that spans two pages.

On the left side of the book, there exist 16 boxes (per wide line) that list various docs that may be checked for each one notarized. There is also room to write in additional documents that may have been notarized for that loan. Additionally, there is a place for the notary date and time, fee, and reference number (invoice, escrow or job # if you wish.)

On the right side of the book (same single wide line) there are spaces for the name, address, type of identification, signature and thumb-print. The whole layout is very logical and makes sense to use.

I called the CA SOS this morning and read the first part of page 25 of the 2013 CA notary Sample Workbook put out by the CA SOS. This is published specifically for vendors to follow, no more, no less. Here is the part I read and requested an interpretation.

“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).)”

And in addition:

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).)

I started by first asking the basic question: “Do we need to record a separate line item for each document notarized?” The investigator said yes, we must use separate lines per notarial act as discussed here in length on many threads. So I described my journal in detail and asked again. The technician and investigator said that it should work.

I expressed my further concern so they asked me to fax the pages. Here are the specific questions I had clarified, while the journal pages were in the HANDS of the SOS investigator!

1) May I use this journal that has a variety of documents that may be checked PLUS write-in additional documents all on one wide line in the journal the way it is set up? Answer: YES

2) Will one thumb print and one signature suffice within that same line that specifies all the documents checked including separate real estate specific docs such as GD, DOT, QCD, etc.? Answer: YES

3) Is it okay for me to charge a flat fee to sign loan docs that may exceed the allowable charge for notarizing signatures, so long as the extra fees include additional expenses that I itemize? Answer: YES

4) Should I be concerned that I may be taken to court and the judge will side with the customer if my fees exceed the allowable limit for the signatures notarized? Answer: “YES, it happens all the time.”

5) Will it suffice if I send the SS one invoice amount, and then maintain separate documentation that breaks down all my fees so there is no question exactly what I charged for and that I am not exceeding allowable notary charges? Answer: “That would be a smart thing to do because at some point you might certainly be challenged.” She said that twice.

6) If my records are subpoenaed for just one notarial event, but I checked or wrote in 15 other items notarized for that loan transaction on the same line that you see in my journal, will that single line specifying a combination of documents suffice for just one or two required documents? Answer: YES

With all my questions the investigator provided answers that were reasonable and the person was not hesitant to follow the logic of how the journal was laid out and meant to be used. They record their conversations.

Summary:

I don’t recommend that anyone follow this information as it’s now third hand. I recommend that you follow the very well-thought out information generously provided by so many here.

Best!

Reply by Stoli on 2/25/13 3:41pm
Msg #457709

Yahoo! n/m

Reply by Gregory/CA on 2/25/13 3:43pm
Msg #457710

Thanks for taking to the time to call SOS.

Are you by chance going to send a letter to obtain a written response or send a letter confirming the conversation you had?

It is nice to know that the SOS investigator confirmed a single line with multiple docs within the line is acceptable.

Great workup!

Reply by Bear900/CA on 2/25/13 3:45pm
Msg #457712

Re: Thanks for taking to the time to call SOS.

Uh, no.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 4:34pm
Msg #457733

Re: Thanks for taking to the time to call SOS.

Why not??? Why even post about the conversation if you aren't willing to follow it up with a written confirmation?

When I called them recently I even said, "I'm going to follow up with a letter, can I expect the same response?" They told me I could and that I was more than welcome to write them.

Why wouldn't you do that?


Why post this, then tell people NOT toll follow it... then tell us you have no intention of following it up in writing?

Of course... some of what you wrote is dead wrong, anyway... see my notes below regarding your comments on the sample workbook. It is *NOT* just for vendors, and I gave you two proofs of it, in writing.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 2/25/13 3:45pm
Msg #457711

Totally confused!

If you don't recommend anyone follow this information, which I understand were SOS responses to your faxed questions, why are you even posting it? Also, why are you deferring to "very well-thought out information generously posted by so many here" over what the SOS wrote in its responses to you?

I'm sorry, I just don't get it ...?

In any case, the answers you received make complete and total sense to me. Thank you for going to all the trouble to obtain that information, and thank you for posting it, even as you disavow it.

Reply by Bear900/CA on 2/25/13 3:47pm
Msg #457714

Re: Totally confused!

It's my general disclaimer.

Reply by Bear900/CA on 2/25/13 4:12pm
Msg #457721

Some Clarification..

I don't wish to make any recommendations regarding this issue. It's for you to decide. My statement was meant to disarm the need to challenge my personal experience with the CA SOS.

To know me better, I prefer that you do things the 'other way'.

I didn't fax the questions. I faxed pages of my specific journal, that I listed above, and we discussed it over the phone while they held a copy of the pages in hand.

I don't disavow my conversation and content with the SOS. I prefer each person research and make their own dicision.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 2/25/13 4:35pm
Msg #457734

So, if we get "called to the carpet" and sued, we cannot

contact you or refer to your post....?

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 2/25/13 6:30pm
Msg #457774

Re: Some Clarification..

OK, gotcha. Thanks, Bear!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 4:30pm
Msg #457729

Hmmmmm

"6) If my records are subpoenaed for just one notarial event, but I checked or wrote in 15 other items notarized for that loan transaction on the same line that you see in my journal, will that single line specifying a combination of documents suffice for just one or two required documents? Answer: YES"

Yes, well what about when a member of the PUBLIC writes you and requests a copy of a line item for a specific document? By law, they have to request certain items and you must respond. If you provide them copies of a line item that exceeds their request (such as discloses additional documents they did not request in their letter) then that could be an issue.

For example, it's good and fine for someone to write and request a copy of the line item for a Deed of Trust. That's pretty common, even recorded. But what if that person also had another document notarized that may be more sensitive... something a member of the public didn't know about? If you lump all those documents on a single line. If you notarized my signature, and I found out that you certified a copy of your journal entry for a document without the proper request, I'd be all over you with a complaint to the Sec of State.

Frankly... I want to see it in writing. Everything I've seen come from their office, in writing, seems to say the opposite of this.

Some of that stuff noted is true, though, especially about notaries being taken to court and accused of overcharging. I posted one such article the other day. It happens a lot. Itemize, itemize, itemize, people. Keep the fees separate. Don't look for ways to make life easier on yourself here... keep yourself out of court and out of trouble and avoid the potential for trouble. It's time consuming and annoying...sure... but in the end, it is worth it if it keeps you out of trouble.


"...2013 CA notary Sample Workbook put out by the CA SOS. This is published specifically for vendors to follow, no more, no less."

That is *NOT* true. The workbook is published by the Secretary of State as their approved educational materials. It is there for vendors to use, as-is, for teaching their classes, or they can modify it and submit their own course material for approval. It is meant for notaries to study and to use along with the handbook. In the 2013 newsletter, they specifically tell notaries to refer to it, (see the bottom of page 3) saying that it is an "invaluable reference tool for all notarial acts and procedures."

Plus, in the letter they sent me a few months ago, that I have posted here, they also mentioned the WORKBOOK as a reference. So, to say that it is something for only the vendors to follow is simply not true. See ( http://www.highdesertnotary.com/casosletter0912.pdf )

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 2/25/13 4:33pm
Msg #457732

I would also like to see their response in writing. n/m

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 2/25/13 4:38pm
Msg #457735

It's just a bunch of "malarkey" n/m

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 2/25/13 4:39pm
Msg #457737

How about if we just follow CA notary Law....? n/m

Reply by Ken/NoCal on 2/25/13 4:45pm
Msg #457739

Nice job Bear. I was told the same thing by the SOS a couple of years ago. I actually went into the office to get a copy of the handbook and showed them the journal. They said it was fine with one entry. I didn't post about it because some still would not accept it. I did not get it in writing. There were 3 people in the office and all agreed. Good enough for me!!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 4:53pm
Msg #457741

There are many who interpret the code that bunching entries together to be fine. I'm okay with that if you 100% think it's right and can specifically state why you think that. I many not personally agree with it... but that's an individual decision. I happen to think that the information I've seen, in writing, out of their office, tells us differently -- and that it is just prudent, for a variety of reasons to keep each item notarized separate. Yes, I realize it's time consuming and annoying. I don't really like it, either. That's why I *REALLY* want to find an electronic journal that works in CA on mobile devices. There are lots of journals out there for mobile devices, but none that really work well for CA yet.

I'm actually about to test one solution on a Dell Windows 8 tablet that just came out. I'm really, really hoping it suits. There are electronic options available, but they just don't work well for mobile notaries because they require too much equipment.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 2/25/13 5:08pm
Msg #457745

Marian-give us/me feedback on Dell-Win 8 electronic journal

for tablet. Good or bad.
Thank you.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 5:19pm
Msg #457752

Re: Marian-give us/me feedback on Dell-Win 8 electronic journal

Will do! I have the tablet (Latitude 10) and I'm waiting on the sales rep from the company to get back to me about the software.

If I *have* to, I might even swallow my pride and go with Enjoa.... but I'd rather not.

SO far, I like the tablet a lot. It's not a super computer by any means, but it can handle basic stuff. It's a nice mix between an ipad and a windows machine, but with an SD card slot and USB port. The trick, I think, will be in the biometric device for recording fingerprints. So far, that's where all of the mobile journal applications pretty much fail.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/25/13 4:57pm
Msg #457742

Excellent work

You are quite wise to take the position that you don't recommend that course to anyone else, but based on the answers you received, it is the course YOU will take. There are those CA notaries, who, for whatever murky reasons, have an emotional investment in the idea that each document must have a separte dated entry in the MoJo. Note that even though you were quite emphatic that you were not becoming an advocate for any position, you still got attacked. It's almost like they own stock in the printing company, and want to see as many journals sold as possible.

Reply by Bear900/CA on 2/25/13 5:09pm
Msg #457746

Re: Excellent work

Hahaha! You're right and I'm on it.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 2/25/13 5:09pm
Msg #457747

You are so precious, Hugh. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 5:14pm
Msg #457748

Re: Excellent work

"Note that even though you were quite emphatic that you were not becoming an advocate for any position, you still got attacked."

He got "attacked" as you put it because:

1) He said he had no intention of getting it in writing.
2) He spotted all that information and then said, "What I'm saying is third hand. Don't follow any of this, In fact, follow all of the other stuff you've been told."
3) He posted incorrect information about the sample workbook -- that is was only for vendors, which it is not.

Plus, the anonymous nature of his post makes it impossible to even know who he is for followup. It's an issue of credibility. I'm not saying what was reported didn't happen, I'm saying it's completely opposite of what I've seen come out of their office, in writing... and the fact that some of what was posted was just wrong makes me wonder what else in the the story is a misinterpretation of the conversation.

If I felt it were legal and prudent to bunch notarial acts in a single entry, I would. I don't really like writing everything out. I do it because I happen to believe the law hat has been clearly explained, in writing, multiple times, and that it is just plain smart to keep things separate for those "what-if" scenarios that can and do pop up.

Reply by ananotary on 2/25/13 5:18pm
Msg #457749

Marian- I can understand your issue with credibility

Why wouldn't you call with these same (and more, I'm sure) questions and follow it up in writing? It sure seems that it would save you a TON of time!!!

Now, if it is just simply your **preference** to use one line per entry, that's your perogative and I would understand why you wouldn't call the SOS for this specifically.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 5:27pm
Msg #457755

Re: Marian- I can understand your issue with credibility

I know that I haven't contacted them about the one-line question myself because, personally, I've seen plenty of things come out of their office in writing, that satisfy the question for me. I've posted those sources here numerous times. For me, I'm comfortable.... but I've always said that I can fully see how one might interpret the code in such a way that it would still be okay to use the one-line method. I don't happen to agree with that interpretation, but I can understand it.

My problem with this individual's post is as I noted above. There are just too many holes in the story to make me believe it. It just seems weird to write all of that (some of it clearly wrong) and then tell everyone to ignore it and then openly say, "I have no intention of following it up."

Oh, okay.... so, then what's the point of the post?

Reply by ananotary on 2/25/13 5:32pm
Msg #457758

Who cares? ***If*** this is accurate, wouldn't you want to

stop the madness??? I don't get your position for one second.

I get that you **interpret** differently than some other CA notaries. Someone has posted something that could possibly be true. **Possibly, if I was a die hard one line per act notary, I would be looking for this in writing to stop the torture of putting people through 15, 20 signatures, thumb prints, etc.

I just don't get why you wouldn't follow through on this, in case the SOS ***does*** put this in writing for you. You would always use and "Exhibit A" with a copy of the MoJo journal page.

I personally don't need to be convinced of this because I am not in your camp for this issue, but if I was, I'd be on it like you wouldn't belive! Doing my own research so not to be concerned with anybody elses's credibility. JMO

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 5:40pm
Msg #457760

Re: Who cares? ***If*** this is accurate, wouldn't you want to

I've posted, numerous (numerous!!) times, multiple sources from the Sec of State's office where they state "one line per act" -- and have openly challenged anyone to get something in writing from them that says otherwise. I've tried finding it, and I'm darn good at research. I've yet to find one single thing, in writing, other than the code itself that says it is okay to use one line for multiple acts. And, the code doesn't even say that. The interpretation of the code of some is such that only "some" elements must appear for each act. That's it.

I'm more than willing to revisit my position if I see something form the Secretary of State, in writing, about this. It's just that I haven't.

Reply by ananotary on 2/25/13 5:47pm
Msg #457761

Exactly my point. You are an excellent researcher

And again *If* Bear is correct and the SOS does in fact give **you** the same in writing, why wouldn't you be willing to investigate?? JMO

I would most certainly be willing to **revisit** my position if I was you. But, again, if you **prefer** your method, then I completely understand why you wouldn't research this and see if the SOS gives it to you in writing.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 6:33pm
Msg #457776

Re: Exactly my point. You are an excellent researcher

Well, the only reason I haven't researched it much further than I already have is because I've already seen enough come out of their office that says "One line per act" --- to me, it's no different than the rules laid out for accepting ID and such. It's pretty clear cut...no need to continue to ask questions because they've already answered it. And, I still don't see anything written from them supplied by anyone else supporting any other position. Therefore, why keep asking them a question that they've obviously answered? To me, any other position is simply somebody looking at the code for a loophole to make their lives easier. Hey, nothing wrong with that... if one feels they can support their position, that's fine. I think it's wrong and taking advantage of a loophole in poorly written code, but....technically... all of the elements are there as required by code. If you are comfortable with it, fine... but you're the one that will need to defend yourself if it comes up, and you're going to have to deal with any of the messiness that might involve. Me? I'd rather just avoid all of that potential and do it straight no matter how time consuming or annoying it may be. Hence, instead of looking for loopholes in code, try looking for solutions that make the tedious process easier while still meeting the "one line per act" requirement.

Reply by ananotary on 2/25/13 6:51pm
Msg #457785

I give up. Definition of insanity is crossing my mind.... n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/25/13 6:53pm
Msg #457786

Re: Exactly my point. You are an excellent researcher

Marian, you've expressed your opinion on this subject repeatedly and have stated that you're comfortable with your decision to keep your journals in the way you feel is best. You've also stated that you realize that other people have come to different conclusions. Maybe it's time to agree to disagree and let it go. You're never going to convince everyone to your way of thinking, and clearly, they're not going to convince you. The only difference is that you seem to want to keep trying.

How a notary keeps a journal is a very individual thing and all notaries have to decide for themselves how they feel they can best comply with state requirements as specified by law. And each notary will be accountable for whatever decisions he or she makes.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 7:08pm
Msg #457793

Re: Exactly my point. You are an excellent researcher

That's exactly what I've been saying! My only issue is with this original post as what I said above... it had nothing to do with the topic itself, really, but the source and the content. My concern is that some people will see this and start thinking that it's now okay to start doing this based on a report of a conversation with somebody at the Secretary of State's office... rather than developing their own reason for doing it.

I really don't care how people keep their individual journals unless it impacts me directly... even if I think they might be putting themselves at risk for future headaches. That's okay. I realize that I am completely anal retentive about some things. Oh, well... it is how I am. To quote Rizzo, "There are worse things I could do..."

Reply by BrendaTx on 2/25/13 9:09pm
Msg #457809

Absolutely agree....

***To quote Rizzo, "There are worse things I could do..."***

Reply by Stoli on 2/25/13 8:09pm
Msg #457805

I've posted, numerous (numerous!!) times...

We ALL know you've posted several times... and its becoming abusive.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 2/25/13 8:24pm
Msg #457807

Re: I've posted, numerous (numerous!!) times...

Gee, thanks. I only bring it up when others do first.

And I have repeatedly asked/challenged for anyone to get something in writing that supports their alternative interpretation. I want to see these things. Seriously. So far, nobody has provided anything except for their opinion. I've posted everything I've found regarding that issue, in writing, and they all only support ONE conclusion. That's how I formed my opinion. I've also stated that I can understand and respect how some come to that alternative interpretation. I may not agree with it, but that's only because I still don't have anything in writing from the CA SoS that seems to support that alternative interpretation.

And yet, I'm the one who people think is abusive? Nice. I post things that come right from the source when the topic comes up and I'm abusive? I get that people may not agree or even like me, but that doesn't mean I don't respect them. Many I even look up to, even if I disagree with them. But wow.... my level of respect for some of those people sure has gone down today. That makes me sad.

Reply by Notarysigner on 2/25/13 5:19pm
Msg #457753

Re: Excellent work workbook help!

i. Sample Journal Entries
The California Secretary of State does not endorse or recommend any particular
commercially printed notarial journal. Any journal that includes space for recording all the
required details is acceptable. Many commercially printed notarial journals have space for
recording other information not required by California law, such as the date of the document, the
address of the signer and transaction notes.
Most notarial journals provide for recording the details of a transaction across two pages;
the record begins on the left and is completed on the facing page. Each page has corresponding
numbered lines and the transaction details to be recorded on line 1 of the left page for instance,
correspond with transaction details to be recorded on line 1 of the facing page. The following
example demonstrates recording the details of a transaction across two pages.

Reply by ananotary on 2/25/13 5:19pm
Msg #457751

Great Job, Bear!!! Thank you!! n/m