Posted by dgd/CA on 1/12/13 12:35am
Msg #450066

"I'm a CA notary Public, I deal with these docs day in and

out. Why are you challenging them? I perform on them daily, and notarize them right and left." This was a response to my last accommodation today. Biting my tongue (I may be in need of a transplant), however; in the presence of my true client, I pushed forward.

Scenario: Refinance of clients yacht, ergo: Marine Documentation. BTW, have performed on three previous/similar sets of documents within the last 15 months or so (personal purchase; refinance; transfer to trust; so forth, so on) for them. Those prior to these, were financed with our most highly regarded local bank (wherein rests their Trusts). Nine out of 12 of these documents certifications required Notarization of their capacity as 'Trustees.' I understand a number of states allow this, unfortunately, California Is Not One Of Them. This, then, was a response to the last of my accommodations for today. (Briefly, I've worked very hard to ensure my wealth of GNW. This was for one of my many "clients" that I accept accommodations from on either a monthly; weekly, and or bi-weekly basis. These particular individuals I shall refer to as Mr/Mrs Doctor [yep...both]).

I must elucidate with regards to the documents. After a quick review, I knew that in accordance with California Law, I could neither sign nor stamp nine out of 12 of them, incorrectly worded Acknowledgements and Jurats... 24 signatures in total, as such, 9 documents, requiring 18 signatures, Were Not In Compliance With Funding And Recordation Laws In California.

Mrs Doctor (Mr Doctor puts his faith in her), when we discussed the language, immediately called their Loan Agent (also a Notary Public) albeit in Southern California, to discuss this. She (we'll call her "Joan") asked to speak with me, when I explained that I could not perform as printed she stated the above to me. To my great fortune, I've known Mr and Mrs Doctor longer than she (UGH), whom they had found on the Internet (this is not the post to discuss the circumstances as to the initial meeting of my clients). I must admit that when I heard Joans' response to my advising her that I would be having to revise the vast majority of Acknowledgments and Jurats, I had to first take a very large breath before I responded to her thusly, "... it's within the confines of our Handbook, as such it is law (as for Mrs Doctor, I further stated [PTL she knows me so well]),.. "...surely you understand the consequences;, but yet; perhaps such time has passed since your last renewal (duh, been on the books for Y.E.A.R.S.) that you're not aware of this. It's appears in our Newly Published Handbook, hopefully, you've bookmarked the address, but just in case, let me give you the web address for our SOS (oops... previous post, there I go abbreviating...lol), surely you would neither want nor wish me to face the fines; possible revocation of my commission and/or imprisonment, Or Yours?" Well, we discussed how I could accomplish "capacity" (my certificates, below my Notarial Name and Stamp have blocks for that) and then Joan most weekly replied..."yes, I'm familiar with those, please feel free to proceed. " (OMG... As If I Could Have Done Otherwise.) Joan also stated... "...please don't do anything that would confuse the bank." Paaaaallllleeeezzzzeeee... Give me a half pound of Dark Chocolate and a Very Large Glass Of (any) Alexander Valley Red Wine.

Insomuch-as in one sentence you caused me anxiety and stress (PTL I was in the presence of not one, but two, highly educated and regarded Cardiology Surgeons , surely, it's the very least I deserve.



IDK who reads this post: Escrow Officers; Signing Services; Attorneys, Banking Personnel... whilst I may have missed a step in a recommendation by our SOS (Workbook), I Never; Ever; Ever, Ever (Handbook) intentionally violate my states laws. That's My Story And I'm Sticking To It !!!

I am blessed to have known these GNW clients for the last five years (as well as many, many others). Incidentally, as we were on speaker phone, Mrs Doctor winked at me twice and gave a me nod and a smile, Mr Doctor looked at me, came over and patted my shoulder to say thank you, and, or course, after signing, walked away to make a call to their financial adviser. That's more than okay, they'd scheduled my time 8 days in advance, well removed from their "booked" surgeries.

The actual signing you ask... they are highly skilled, Nationally Recognized And Specialized Physicians/Surgeons... comparatively speaking, they can't be bothered, simple as sliced pie. The performance of my function as a Notary Public took perhaps 20 times as long as the document signing. ROFL...

Sorry for the length of my post... so tired of anything that Smacks Of Violation. Particularly when that Smack rests within my own state. Sigh... Sigh... Sigh

Reply by sealed/CA on 1/12/13 12:43am
Msg #450067

Whew! I know you're glad that's over. : )

Reply by dgd/CA on 1/12/13 10:59am
Msg #450089

Yes, Elizabeth, I was. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/12/13 2:01am
Msg #450072

I'm willing to bet that "joan" got her training from a specific organization...

Reply by Julie/MI on 1/12/13 7:26am
Msg #450076

once again the ca public not served

I would be contacting members of ca's legislative body on how their stupid/ignorant word play on notary jurat/acknowledgements does not serve the public.

Use Michigan for an example on a state that has notarial laws that DO serve the public. keep it simple California! Too much word drama for this notary

Reply by CentralNY on 1/12/13 8:46am
Msg #450078

i totally agree, i would not do this job in

CA, just crazy.

Reply by dgd/CA on 1/12/13 8:51am
Msg #450079

Julie, you're probably right, CA does seem to be going

overboard in so many areas regarding it's Notaries Public and the laws that regulate. However; our Acks and Jurats have been basically the same for a couple of decades (5 years ago, 4 words were removed from the Ack, and two parenthetical words added to the Jurat). This company had Trustee Acks that I have never seen before, 1/2 page of language that caused me to read twice before I understood them. (Lol, please don't let our SOS get a glimpse of them. Given the path her office has taken, she just might try to convince all of our counties that this was the way to go.)

I believe our regulating body is too involved in trivia and finite minutia. It makes it extremely difficult for us function, and no, I do not always agree with it's decisions; definitions and/or reasoning. Be that as it may, if it appears in our Handbook, it is incumbent upon us to follow them.

My rant had more to do with my fellow CA notary Public and her attitude rather than the forms (although I'd take yours any day of the week ).

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/12/13 10:45am
Msg #450088

ACtually, the required CA wording is a good thing...

As annoying as it may be for many, the wording and requirements are there for VERY good reasons, and it's to actually protect the notary. The wording of the acknowledgment, for example, is specifically done so as to put the claim on the signer, not the notary. Now, even thought WE are signing it under the penalty of perjury, we are NOT signing as to the content of the document in any fashion... we're only swearing to the facts of our notarial certificate --- which are that John Doe appeared before us, gave us ID and claimed to have the authorized capacity to sign the document. In reality, for all the long windedness of it all, it makes the process quite simple and we don't have to second guess anything.

BY using the required wording and avoiding extraneous words (such as capacities, etc) we are only protecting ourselves and putting the responsibility on them --- and that is also why the state has a strict set if ID rules, too.

As much as I'm all for the government butting OUT of my business... I think this requisite wording is actually a good thing for the notaries because it protects us. As long as we follow the rules they set out, we're protected... especially in a state that is "sue happy".

Reply by Julie/MI on 1/12/13 11:53am
Msg #450092

Re: ACtually, the required CA wording is a good thing

Our public acts are very specific in that the notary isn't responsible for the content.

What a waste of time for the doctors, the patient(s) and the notary.

Simply stupid and you'll never ever convince me otherwise.

I don't under stand your concerns on extraneous words, because we are not required to show "proof" that one is vp or a company or trustee of a trust or spouse. If the person says they are the trustee, then they are the trustee. Not the notary's responsibility.

Reply by dgd/CA on 1/12/13 8:52am
Msg #450080

Indeed :-) n/m

Reply by dgd/CA on 1/12/13 8:54am
Msg #450081

Oops... Indeed Mirian :-) n/m

Reply by dgd/CA on 1/12/13 8:55am
Msg #450082

UGH.. Marian :-) Must Have Coffee... n/m

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 1/12/13 3:43pm
Msg #450118

Re: UGH.. Marian :-) Must Have Coffee...

Agree with Marian.... the CA legislature makes it easy: one ack, one jurat. We don't have to fret and fume about wording or wring our hands wondering if such and such will fly. It's bada bing, bada boom. We're done.

Also I'm not totally clear about the dilemma in your post - other than Joan is an idiot. But when faced with CA noncompliant verbiage, including capacity wording (as we often are), I feel no need to consult with anyone or inform anyone, including the signers ... I merely cross out capacity or add a loose leaf certificate and move on. No drama, no trauma. Could you have done that without getting your signers all involved or having to overhear the phone call with Joan or am I misunderstanding your post???

Reply by Yoli/CA on 1/12/13 3:49pm
Msg #450119

Wondered the same thing, GoldGirl ..... n/m