Posted by BossLadyMD on 6/11/13 11:38am
Msg #472899

Doing a split signing Friday, told not to strike threw??

I'm doing a split signing for 4 people buying a vacation home. I have 2 borrowers and the other notary will have the other 2. The title company told me not to strike threw the 2 people who are NOT in my presence, although their names are listed as being in my presence when they sign.

Isnt the other notary supposed to attached a loose acks? I dont do split signings that often, please clarify. Thanks in advance!

Reply by Notarysigner on 6/11/13 11:46am
Msg #472901

Now now now, isn't that a classic case of BS. simple solution, you attach the loose ACKs and let the "other" notary make that call. At Least you'll be following instruction of NOT striking thru.

Reply by BossLadyMD on 6/11/13 12:20pm
Msg #472915

Thanks, this is gonna be a ton of work now :(

All four names are pre-printed on EVERYTHING. The package is 190 pages

Reply by Gary Williamson on 6/11/13 11:54am
Msg #472907

In a situation like this, which I have had a number of times, I write in the names on the Acknowledgement of the two that signed in front of me and do not cross out the names of the other two that are typed above the Acknowledgement for signature. However if all four names have been pre-typed in on the acknowledgement portion then you have to cross out the ones that are not signing in your presence.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 6/11/13 12:12pm
Msg #472911

As Gary stated, don't cross out names in the body of the docs. HOWEVER ... the notarial certificate is your domain. The "cleanest" method would probably be as James states and attach a loose certificate for your portion.

Reply by BossLadyMD on 6/11/13 12:18pm
Msg #472913

All four names are pre-printed on everything. This is a mess. I am going to have to attach a zillion acks

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 6/11/13 12:26pm
Msg #472916

Don't you have an ack form on your computer where you can type in the names of the two people you're signing and then print a zillion? Or does your SOS Web site have a blank ack form that works the same way (like CA does)? That'll save you bunches of time.

Also, could you call/e-mail whoever put the kabosh on the strike-throughs and tell them that you can't possibly - as in it's illegal - *not* strike through the two names of the two signers not appearing before you? Try to reason with them... which probably isn't likely since they've already issued this bonehead rule! Then again, maybe they think it won't be recorded with crossouts. Seem to have a had a couple of posts about that lately

So, yes, as the others said, loose certificates look like your only option at this point.

Reply by jba/fl on 6/11/13 1:18pm
Msg #472930

Of course all four names will be on everything - four people own the property.

You will be dealing with the two people in front of you. You would not strike anything in the body of the documents, only in your certificates.

I get the impression that the person you talked with has had someone in the past strike names on the docs. That would certainly get their dander up. As others have said, the certs are your domain. Make sure you take acks and jurats with you for your 2 people. I would print a few of each prior to the appointment, tucking them in the doc set in the appropriate spots and let the other notary worry about doing the same or crossing out. For all you know, at this time, the other notary could be one of us and we know how we would do this properly.

Deep cleansing breaths.....

Reply by Notarysigner on 6/11/13 3:24pm
Msg #472946

Is it coming to Calif? 'cause we don't to see weird Acks! :) n/m

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 6/11/13 12:19pm
Msg #472914

Most of the time, it is the second notary that has to add all the extra notary certs since the first notary usually uses the pre-printed ones in the file. I have been the first and the second notary on several split signing. A few times when I was the first NSA, it was easier for me to add notary certs because the pre-printed certs were state specific to the state where the 2nd signer(s) were signing. Most of the time, it's no big deal, imo.

If I were you, I would try to contact TC again and get a different person. It sounds like there may have been a misunderstanding of the * real * issue. If they still insist that you preform an illegal notary act, since the other 2 people are not actually signing the docs in front of you, I would just say "I understand what you want" (not "OK", you don't want to agree to do that), then politely thank them for the information.

Then, if it were me, I would just attach loose ack/jurat certs with the correct information for the BO's at my signing only. The 2nd notary will either just strike thru when they meet with the last 2, or if they also get the same instructions from TC, hopefully, they will also attach their own notary certs.

I wouldn't lose the signing over what seems to be a misunderstanding. The person you spoke with may not understand that the notary blocks are the Notary's domain, not the TC's, any SS's, or the Lender's. The TC may have a policy that they tell everyone (usually aimed at BO's &/or LO's) not to strike thru anything once the docs are prepared, which would work 99% of the time, until you have a situation such as split signing, as just one example. Rather than using common sense, some employees are only capable of repeating their standard policies, regardless of the situation.

If the TC is a good client, I wouldn't let something that can be easily fixed on my end, cost me the signing.

Reply by BossLadyMD on 6/11/13 12:29pm
Msg #472919

I think you're right, big misunderstanding

In the past, I have always striked the names of those not present and the other notary has attached loose acks.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/11/13 12:34pm
Msg #472920

I agree with the other posters..

I'd run a bunch of certs on my computer and attach to the docs as I go along - let the other notary worry about dual names.

Only problem is - there's nothing to say your cert won't be thrown out and hers used for all signers if she follows the no-crossout rule -

Reply by BossLadyMD on 6/11/13 12:47pm
Msg #472923

Right and it will look like they all signed in front of her

That's exactly why I want to cross their names out. I'm thinking that it will keep everything legit.

Reply by Notarysigner on 6/11/13 1:09pm
Msg #472928

Yea in front of her same date two different states, hmm

could happen.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/11/13 8:35pm
Msg #472980

Re: Right and it will look like they all signed in front of her

You can't control what someone else does or doesn't do. It doesn't make it right, but if they do that, at least your name won't be associated with that doc. All you can do is what is right for you in your state. My cert's must say that so and so "personally appeared" before me, and I'm signing that statement under penalty of perjury. Very clear cut. So I don't give a rip what anyone says about what goes into the certificate. If a person doesn't appear before me, their name is not going to appear in the certificate that has my signature and stamp, however I manage to address that. Your state may not have the same literal requirement, but I believe the concept is going to be the same.

When I'm the first signer, I generally leave the existing certificate if the verbiage isn't correct for me, as I'd have to replace it anyway. I also print on the page near the signatures "See attached certificate" or something to that effect, which makes it less likely that they'll simply toss the one you add, if they can use the cert provided with the docs. [One of these months I'll get around to ordering stamps with that on it... ]

Reply by LKT/CA on 6/11/13 2:26pm
Msg #472937

No UGLY docs

Sounds like the TC simply wants CLEAN docs. In this signing, BOTH notaries will need to add loose certs. I don't believe this is a case of misunderstanding by the TC or that they don't know the notary's domain. If your state's notary guidebook has required/suggested cert wording, copy that to your word processing program. Then type everything - venue, date, borrower's names, and optional info at the bottom (doc title, date, # of pages, etc). Print as many as need - and a few extras. You'll only have to sign and stamp.

The local B of A that I notarize for includes the signer's capacity (illegal in CA) on their pre-printed acknowledgment certs....if they didn't do that, the rest of the cert wording is compliant for CA. They'd rather I attach a loose acknowledgment than strike through the signer's capacity. Strike throughs look sloppy/tacky. I believe the TC just doesn't want ugly docs.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 6/11/13 2:43pm
Msg #472939

Re: No UGLY docs

That seems plausible. But it's also nice to be able to predict recording fees, which often depend on the number of pages. Adding loose certs to recordable documents drives up the recording fee.

Some sources encourage notaries who have to attach loose certs to use the same size paper as the rest of the document.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/11/13 2:59pm
Msg #472941

Re: No UGLY docs

"Adding loose certs to recordable documents drives up the recording fee."

That's their problem, not the notaries'... they need to do the research and put the proper information on there, or leave off stuff (such as capacity for us in CA), otherwise they risk additional pages.

I'm not breaking the law so somebody else can save a few bucks on recording fees.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 6/11/13 3:07pm
Msg #472943

Re: No UGLY docs

I absolutely agree if the certificate is unacceptable, the notary needs to do something to make it acceptable, and sometimes a loose certificate is the only choice. But if it could be fixed either with a loose certificate or crossing out, it's hard to guess which the client would prefer.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/11/13 3:15pm
Msg #472944

Re: No UGLY docs

In some ways, I don't really care what the client prefers... the notarial certificate is OUR domain, not theirs. They can't dictate to us how we complete it. If it's "messy" because something needs to be crossed out or attached, it's their fault, not the notary's.

Just because they supply wording or try to be helpful by pre-filling certain information doesn't mean we are obligated to use it.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/11/13 3:17pm
Msg #472945

Re: No UGLY docs

"That's their problem, not the notaries'"

It's the notary's problem if they throw the fees off and enough money isn't collected. That's why when these situations occur (which for me have been very rare) I make sure the hiring party is aware I'll be attaching a loose ack so they can account for it.

I won't break the law either - but I also don't want the additional recording fees incurred because of something *I* did coming out of MY fee.

Reply by John Tennant on 6/11/13 3:47pm
Msg #472949

Re: No UGLY docs

Every loan package I receive for property that is going to be recorded outside of California has almost 100% incorrectly worded (per CA requirements) Ack's and Jurat's, making it necessary to attach loose certs. I do not contact my hiring party to advise them of this. I do enclose a letter describing what I did, or did not do, to comply with California's requirements. I never have had payment reduced for doing the corrected documentation, nor have I had any "kicked" back. If they got it wrong, I make it right. Their fault. JMHO

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/11/13 6:32pm
Msg #472967

Re: No UGLY docs

I've never had any come back either, nor fees docked. I have a standard note that I will clip to the front of a package that states certain forms were attached (with a staple) and why... and it always references that applicable states codes.

I also give them the web address, for future reference, where they can download the correct certificate wording for CA notaries. I've only had positive responses to it, including several thank you notes from people (from out of state) who said they didn't realize CA had statutory wording.

Reply by SharonMN on 6/11/13 6:10pm
Msg #472960

Re: No UGLY docs

I know some notaries strike through the signature block of signers not before them, necessitating that every document be signed in counterparts (separate signature pages for each signer/notary). I bet title companies & lenders don't like that.

Leave the signature block and the document alone. Either attach or write in a compliant ack with the names of the signers in front of you only.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/11/13 8:43pm
Msg #472982

Re: No UGLY docs

"Leave the signature block and the document alone. Either attach or write in a compliant ack with the names of the signers in front of you only."

Wholeheartedly agree. Just as the notary certificate is our exclusive domain, the document itself (including signature blocks) is NOT and should be left alone by us. I would never change anything in a document (except for maybe a wayward venue that is incorrect) without permission from the client. Another exception might be a statement in a document I have to notarize that includes references to me as the "undersigned" that go beyond my authority or are inaccurate. Even there, I generally want to check with the client. The latter, however, is something that apparently varies greatly from state to state.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/11/13 9:39pm
Msg #472992

Re: No UGLY docs

Why would anyone mess with a signature block? That's weird to me... the notary has no business touching that.

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 6/12/13 9:28am
Msg #473005

I agree. Additonal signature block(s) should never be struck

...out by the notary.

MO, and not a legal one, if the notary makes changes to anything other than a notary block on any of the closing docs, such as unnecessarily striking through signature blocks, doing so might expose the notary to legal issues for materially changing the loan documents.

That is why either the names in the pre-printed notary block of signers not present are struck out and/or the proper notarial certs are attached. Not every person listed has to sign on the exact same day and the exact same time in front of the same notary for each person that signs to obtain a proper notary certificate for that document. Each additional notary adds their own notary certificate.

Reply by Moneyman/TX on 6/12/13 10:52am
Msg #473014

Re: LKT: You could be correct.

It could very well be a case of "no ugly docs", I have had some of those as well.
If this was such a case, you would think that the TC contact should have been trained well enough to be capable of explaining such a policy to any NSA clearly without any misunderstandings. Again, if that's what it was, everyone can have an off day, maybe that was just one of hers.

IMO, IF a TC has a "no ugly docs" type of policy and they know the file will be a split signing, they should print 2 notary certificates with either the names of the proper signers for each notary OR leave blanks for each notary to fill in for each doc that requires a notary seal. The names are added via a form document merging data entry program. It would only take them an additional minute or two to input the proper info and print only the 8, 10, 15, or in some cases, 30+ notary certificates needed since they have all the information in front of them. Doing so would help the TC to ensure that they received a "clean" set of docs when they are returned. It would also save the TC the additional man hours, over a year's time, spent on phones, or in emails, correcting any confusion their policy might create in split signings cases.

Not all "no ugly docs" split signings are PITA's, but the ones with an excessive numbers of required notarizations can be.


Now, if everyone will indulge me for a short TC rant/cathartic vent:
I really wish all TC's would demand that the law firms they purchase the closing docs programs from would either have to include state specific notary certificates for each state that could be added at the time the processors input the client/loan information or, at the very least, demand that they use the same wording for every short/long notary forms used throughout the entire loan package (i.e. be consistent). After all, the TC's, or the attorneys, are collecting between $150-$250, on average, per closing file basically as a royalty for a software program.

Changing the wording on nearly every single notary certificate in the loan package guarantees that many of them are nearly, if not totally, useless for nearly every single notary, every single time.

I felt the need to vent, thanks to the signing last night with 26 different required notary seals, including the 20 loose notary certs I had to add to the package. This one was not a split signing.

Reply by linda/ca on 6/11/13 4:20pm
Msg #472951

I love having my acknowledgement stamp for situations like

this! If you can fit the wording on the same page just use your stamp and write in the parties in front of you and put "only" after their names and your problem is solved. Other than that it appears that a loose certificate is needed. Just be sure to add the words "loose certificates" in your journal so not to worry about what someone does at the other end; as someone noted.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 6/11/13 6:29pm
Msg #472965

Re: I love having my acknowledgement stamp for situations like

This really only applies to CA... but I'd never write "only" after a name or two. The only word I used is "and" between names, that's it.

What I do when writing a name out, I put lines or arrows before and after the names(s), so if anyone attempts to add a name, it's obvious.

So, is looks like this:

---------- James A. Doe and Jane C. Doe ---------------

or

----------> James A. Doe and Jane C. Doe <---------------

Reply by linda/ca on 6/12/13 12:46am
Msg #472997

Marian, I would never use your example; putting only makes

it clear no one else to be added and that is all that is needed! Yes, it's good to be very careful in this business, however not to be overly paraionoid.

Reply by linda/ca on 6/12/13 12:50am
Msg #472998

should have been paranoid....didn't get to finish post! n/m

Reply by BossLadyMD on 6/12/13 9:38am
Msg #473007

Thanks for the sound advise and PMs :)

UPDATE: They have, as suspected, asked both notaries to attach loose acks. And I have taken the liberty of printing mine ahead of time from our SOS website. Thanks again everyone

Reply by jba/fl on 6/12/13 3:03pm
Msg #473053

Don't forget some jurats for those affidavits. n/m