Posted by leeinla on 1/3/13 5:40pm
Msg #448722

CA Notaries- Purchasing a Journal?

Where is the best place to purchase a CA compliant journal? I do not want to give any more money to xyz.

Reply by Molly/Ca on 1/3/13 5:51pm
Msg #448725

Notary Rotary!!! n/m

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 1/3/13 5:55pm
Msg #448727

As long as you use one (1) line per sig that u r notarizing,

then the Notary Rotary Journal is California compliant.

Reply by HisHughness on 1/3/13 6:00pm
Msg #448728

Re: As long as you use one (1) line per sig that u r notarizing,

Be aware that not everyone shares Stephanie's restrictive view of how journal entries must be made. There are many, including California notaries, who take a much more reasonable view, and the NotRot journal fills the requiements just fine.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 1/3/13 6:08pm
Msg #448729

While you are correct Hugh, I was giving my opinion & how

I have utilized the Journal of Official acts that I purchased from Notary Rotary.

***By taking a much more reasonable view, I may open myself to penalties, this is just my best practices.
The NotRot journal fills the requirement just fine, based on how one uses it.

Reply by John Tennant on 1/3/13 6:29pm
Msg #448736

I agree with Stephanie.

I use one line for each notarization and the journal fills that requirement. Yes, it does require more than one buyer signature in the journal, however, that meets Ca. requirements.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/3/13 9:13pm
Msg #448760

Re: While you are correct Hugh, I was giving my opinion & how

Stephanie, I think you make a valid point here. But in your post above, you didn't indicate that this was your personal opinion, which I believe is the point - also valid, imo - that Hugh was trying to make.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/3/13 7:10pm
Msg #448741

I like the NOtRot journal... but as several others noted, it really isn't suitable for CA Notaries who follow the 1 line per act practice. You can still use it just fin, but you'll find you'll end up with some wasted space because you aren't using any of the check boxes, etc.

ALSO... be careful to follow the new guidance from the 2013 newsletter where the Sec of State says NO ABBREVIATIONS in our journals.

My other concern with the NotRot journal is that the individual entries lack the required statement that "the identity of a person making an acknowledgment or taking an oath or affirmation was based on “satisfactory evidence” pursuant to Civil Code section 1185." I used to think that merely writing the ID information down fulfilled the said evidence statement requirement, but after reviewing the sample journal entries in the Sample Workbook, I don't think that anymore. I think it is probably a seriously nitpicky little thing, but if it's not there...it's not there. And State law requires it. So, either you have to write it in manually each time or something else. Me? I made up my own journal to fit with my work flow and those journal entries have a spot above the ID information section with a header statement that reads, "Satisfactory Evidence of Identity Established Pursuant to CA Civil Code section 1185 Using:" -- I feel better using that. Now, it's preprinted on each line entry and I don't worry about it.

I wish NotRot would make a CA specific journal that allowed for the one-line method without the wasted space and added the satisfactory evidence statement wording. If it did, I'd go back to it in a heartbeat. I think they make the best journals on the market.

Of course... I also wish they'd make a vertical journal, spiral bound at the top, too. As a lefty, I really struggle with any of the big bulky bound journals.

Reply by leeinla on 1/3/13 7:27pm
Msg #448746

Thanks Marian. Where are other places where I can purchase a CA compliant journal? I am also a lefty so I know what you mean.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/3/13 8:01pm
Msg #448750

Overboard

I'm with Hugh (as you all know), and as far as the SOS' latest diatribe in which they write notaries must "record the details of the identification document used to identfy the signer of the document notarized; including the type of identificaton (e.g. drivers' license, passport), the governmental agency that issued the identification ... " AND follow the new NO abbreviation rule, they can come get my commission now.

If the SOS thinks I am going to write out "California Department of Motor Vehicles Driver's License' every single time where I indicate the DL's state or "United States of America Passport" where I indicate the country's passport, it's not going to happen. What's wrong with CA and USA? It's good enough for the Post Office and Fed Ex.
The office is so completely out of control when it comes to journal keeping it's ridiculous. If anyone ever wants to know who signed what and when, my journal will reflect that, and I am not getting more than one thumbprint per signer per loan signing. That's abusive and stupid. I'm keeping a "journal," not the Congressional Record.

I protest having to write out Acknowledgment, Affidavit, Agreement and Deed of Trust, etc. for every loan signing I do so that the SOS doesn't have to scratch its little head trying to figure out what Aff or Agrmnt or Ack means. This is even more unbelievable considering there are many states where a journal isn't even required. If the SOS is in such a lather re journal-keeping, it should design its own journal with examples of exactly how they want everything WRITTEN out for every notarial act instead of handing out largely incomprehensible piecemeal instructions every so often after their "investigators" spot something they don't like. And yes, the SOS has investigators investigating notaries public.

Seems to me the SOS has got far bigger fish to worry about than abbreviations in our journals when it continues to insruct notaries not to use Costco cards for IDs, not to use the notary stamp except with a certificate, and to obtain thumbprints for real estate related transactions and POAs. Woops! I means Powers of Attorney. Oh, and what was the other bonehead thing? "Remember to use the correct jurat and acknowledgment form." Huh? Oh, OK, I'll try and remember. And this: "Require the presence of all persons for whom you perform notarial acts." Really? Gee, thanks for giving me a heads up. Yikes!

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/3/13 8:43pm
Msg #448754

I appreciate what you have written here, GG.

I have always held that the over-the-top-detail that California notaries gets tied into is a direct result of the assn. that is in their state. That group holds a huge membership role...it has political clout...it can persuade...it loves to sell journals. Certainly not meaning that journal sales are at the bottom of this, but if an organization can become the-one-and-only source of all knowledge because the rules and regs are so complicated, it's good for them.

Do I think that they want it done with the one signature per line document no matter how many? Yes.

I'm just sorry that it is this way for CA notaries.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 1/3/13 9:10pm
Msg #448759

Re: Overboard

<<Seems to me the SOS has got far bigger fish to worry about than abbreviations in our journals when it continues to insruct notaries not to use Costco cards for IDs, not to use the notary stamp except with a certificate, and to obtain thumbprints for real estate related transactions and POAs. Woops! I means Powers of Attorney. Oh, and what was the other bonehead thing? "Remember to use the correct jurat and acknowledgment form." Huh? Oh, OK, I'll try and remember. And this: "Require the presence of all persons for whom you perform notarial acts." Really? Gee, thanks for giving me a heads up. Yikes!>>

Agreed. As I've said before, I believe there is a wide chasm between the kind of sloppiness in the examples noted above and some of the interpretations being given here. I highly suspect that the concerns expressed by the office of the SOS about proper journal keeping are primarily directed at those at the bottom of the curve and not at those who may fall some small degree short of perfection, as some may perceive it. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't fully comply with the requirements, just that I believe there IS some room for interpretation. Every CA notary has to decide for themselves to what degree they want to take their journal keeping, as long as they consider themselves meeting the legal requirements.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/3/13 9:34pm
Msg #448762

I hear you, Janet.

And now that I've calmed down at little, I notice the 2013 Notary News contains a few other things the SOS is clearly cracking down on; notably TC signings where often the notary isn't even present but sends in a flunkie to conduct the signing and fill out the journal and then uses the "office stamp" to notarize the docs. I'm sure this goes on at banks, too, and some mail stores. That's why the SOS keeps pounding away at keeping your journal and stamp under lock and key except when you and only you are using it.

Also I don't believe I've ever seen this before:
"The person who has signed a document must be with you at the time you complete a jurat or certificate of acknowlegment." The SOS has hinted at it, talked around it, etc., over the years but until now had never came right out and said it. Of course, it's not code, but the SOS's interpretation of code. So, no more notarizing later over a glass of chilled pinot. Also, I suspect this is another slap at TC staffers, who wait until the end of the day before stamping and signing piles of loans ... long after the borrowers have left. Or in the case of robo signings/notarizations.

Reply by Budman on 1/3/13 9:39pm
Msg #448763

Re: I'm with you Goldgirl!!!!! n/m

Reply by jba/fl on 1/3/13 9:42pm
Msg #448765

"Or in the case of robo signings/notarizations." Because of. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/3/13 9:58pm
Msg #448767

Re: I hear you, Janet.

""The person who has signed a document must be with you at the time you complete a jurat or certificate of acknowlegment." The SOS has hinted at it, talked around it, etc., over the years but until now had never came right out and said it. Of course, it's not code, but the SOS's interpretation of code. So, no more notarizing later over a glass of chilled pinot. Also, I suspect this is another slap at TC staffers, who wait until the end of the day before stamping and signing piles of loans ... long after the borrowers have left. Or in the case of robo signings/notarizations."


Actually, I think we saw a hint of this a few months ago. Or, at least I did with the letter I got from the Sec of State that I posted here.

If anyone missed it, here's a copy: www.highdesertnotary.com/casosletter0912.pdf

And the backstory can be found here: Msg #435048

My inquiry was really about issuing replacement or duplicate certificates when asked by by escrow or title companies, because it is often discussed here. I never did it myself... I always thought it required an entirely new notarial act and journal entry, but others didn't think so. I was torn, so I asked what the Sec of State's position was on it. Over the phone, I was told no. I followed it up with a letter, and told the same. NO can do.

They also note in the letter, "The notarial certificate and journal entry must be completed at the time the notarial act is completed." -- Now, I suppose one could interpret that sentence to meant that one could complete the act outside of the presence of the signer, and some people did respond in that mindset, clearly put out by the idea of having to complete 15-20 notarizations at a loan signing in front of the borrowers.

But with what it now says in the newsletter, I think that's obviously out of the question. The Sec of State clearly wants us to complete the notarial certificate and journal entries in front of the signers, in their entirety. Yup.. more time consuming...more work...much of it annoying an repetitive... but you know what? That's another good reason why we should NOT be accepting crappy low fees. We're professionals, and in many cases parts of our job are regulated by authorities outside of our control - whether we like it or not, and therefore, we are entitled are compensation for our time and services if the state is going to make us work more or use more supplies (such as requiring the use of staples for loose certificates).

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/3/13 10:07pm
Msg #448769

Re: I hear you, Janet.

GG.... I think you're right, BTW, about your impressions as to the who is responsible for a lot of these babysitting reminders and rules... and we all know that it's likely a large majority of those notaries didn't get their training from NotRot.... let's put it that way. I'm sure we all know what notary mill spit them out.

Reply by CentralNY on 1/4/13 5:42am
Msg #448792

I do feel for CA notaries, yikes n/m

Reply by dgd/CA on 1/4/13 11:10am
Msg #448831

Re: Overboard

"The Notary Public Handbook contains California laws relating to notaries public and is designed to assist an applicant in preparing for the notary public examination. Refer to the current version of the handbook when preparing for the examination." (From the CA SOS, oops abbreviated, website.)

I'm with you Goldgirl... This is what I refer to. I can appreciate the office (staff) of our SOS wanting to ensure that we perform our duties as prescribed by law, and very much appreciate our Newsletters informing us of such. However; as far as the rest of this is concerned, I'm certain the contents and clarity of my journal cannot be successfully attacked, and, unless these "wants; suggestions; wishes, etc." actually find their way into the Handbook (which would require any number of revisions to Law) I will continue to plod along.

As far as the Workbook... don't get me started.

I'm going to contact our "Secretary of State" (lol) and ask Specifically, The Name Of The Individual(s) That Are Responsible For Inserting This Latest Verbiage... I Assure You All, It Is Not Debra Bowen.

Best wishes for continued prosperity in this New Year.