Posted by VT_Syrup on 2/8/13 7:49am
Msg #454708

being before me duly sworn, acknowledged

SuzieQ/CA posted an acknowledgement (?) in Msg #454396:

"I hereby certify that on this ____ day of ___, ___, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the jurisdiction aforesaid, personally appeared the within named, _______, personally know by me or proved to me by the production of a driver's license as identification to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and, being before me duly sworn, acknowledged the foregoing to be his/her free act, and in my presence signed and sealed same."

I've seen this too. Right off, I noticed something different: it says it was signed and sealed in the presence of the notary. Not an issue for NSAs, but for general notary work, people may acknowledge documents that were signed in advance.

When SuzieQ's thread began, I realized I don't understand what the signer is swearing to. Is the signer swearing that the contents of the document are true, or is the signer swearing that he/she really did acknowledge the document?

My state notary handbook advises "A notary may examine a person to see if he or she comprehends the meaning of the oath or affirmation, and may decline to administer it if not satisfied." If I don't understand the meaning, how can I tell if the affiant does? Fortunately the affiants normally believe what is in the document is true, to the best of their knowledge, so it isn't that big of an issue.

Too bad it isn't practical to find the person who came up with this and ask them what they were thinking.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/8/13 8:22am
Msg #454712

I don't understand your objecton. If the person is simply acknowledging his signature, then the certification you listed would not be used.

Paul and I, before his death, had several discusions on whether an acknowledgment could be combined with a jurat. I contend that they can, and it would be entirely appropriate if a document contains the elements of an affidavit but also contains elements that need only acknowledgement.

And while we're on the subject: IMP. I Miss Paul. In fact, IRMP: I REALLY Miss Paul.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 2/8/13 8:43am
Msg #454717

HisHughness wrote "I don't understand your objecton. If the person is simply acknowledging his signature, then the certification you listed would not be used."

I've come across 19th century sources that mentioned an acknowledgement oath, seeming to indicate that the acknowledgement was considered a sworn statement by the person acknowledging. I wouldn't rule out this phrasing being something someone dredged up from the 19th century.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 2/8/13 2:13pm
Msg #454802

That may work for other states, but for SuzyQ/CA, it's not an option, as jurat and acknowledgment wording has to be in the form provided by state law, with only one option for each (unless there's a subscribing witness involved with an ack). So to get both concepts covered for one document, the only option I can see would be to use one of each.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 2/8/13 3:39pm
Msg #454836

True, in states with required wording for the certificate, the unusual certificate can't be used. So someone will have to know what the certificate means in order to decide what to attach.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 2/8/13 10:25am
Msg #454727

Re: being before me duly sworn, acknowledged.I miss him too. n/m