Posted by Mike Goodey on 3/14/13 3:03pm
Msg #461186

Notarizing docs

Thank you all for your input in my last message...sorry I opened up a can of worms and also sorry for my rant on the US Bank poor service...just ranting again because it took sooo long...anyway, for those of you who do have bo's sign every line for each notarization in your book, do you fill out all their ID info on each line? Just wondering...thanks again for all of your respnses.

Reply by Blueink_TN on 3/14/13 4:03pm
Msg #461217

Re: Notarizing docs - FWIW

When I moved out of CA, I boxed up all (about 30)of my notary journals and delivered them to the Clerk of Courts per the SOS instruction. I used the MoJo (1 sig for several notarial acts) and I didn't hear a peep from anyone. Maybe nobody looked at them but I'm still using the MoJo and feel comfortable.

Reply by Blueink_TN on 3/14/13 4:08pm
Msg #461219

Oh, and

I am also an LO licensed in TN, KY and AL (sorry about advertising) and I can attest to the fact that it is easier to move a mountain than to get a loan approved these days. It's grueling!! I tell clients upfront that it is going to be a headache and usually need to remind them that I warned them.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/14/13 7:42pm
Msg #461251

Mike... yes, every entry in your journal, no matter home many you do, must have ALL of the required information for each entry, and that includes ID information.

If it helps, see page 4 of this document, from the fall of 2009... from the Secretary of State's office:

http://www.notaryrotary.com/library/10-23-09-vendors-meeting-minutes-final.pdf


It says:

"Q, When multiple notarial acts are performed, is it acceptable for a diagonal line to be drawn
from the first document to the last document in the notary public journal with a single signature
covering all transactions? In addition, can ditto (“) marks be used in the journal?

A. Government Code section 8206 requires that the notary public's journal include all the
information for "each official act." Therefore, each act would include the date, time, type of
each official act, character of the instrument, signature, type of identification, fee, and
thumbprint (if applicable) on a separate line for each act."


BTW... that's one of the documents I'm referring to what I say that it supports that the Secretary of State wants to see one line per act. Why? Because that's what it says! If you simplify that last sentence it seems more than clear to me:

"...each act would include the [the required elements] on a separate line for each act."

Reply by ananotary on 3/14/13 9:26pm
Msg #461284

That is an interpretation, JMHO, of course. n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/14/13 9:54pm
Msg #461287

Re: That is an interpretation, JMHO, of course.

See, this is what confuses me. That is what they have said they expect to see us do. According to what the Sec of State wrote, each notarial act should have it's own line entry and include the following:

"- date, time, type of each official act
- character of the instrument
- signature
- type of identification
- fee
- thumbprint (if applicable)

on a separate line for each act."


That, to me, is really clear... all of those are PER ACT on their own line... and that is from the SoS on their letterhead. That's what they EXPECT to see their notaries doing.

Now, the issue here is that the actual code referenced (GC 8206) lists all of those except the character of the instrument. That's where the argument lies, and frankly, the point I'm trying to make. While the law itself reads a certain way and many people interpret it their way...which is totally fine... what really matters is what the Secretary of State EXPECTS us to do.

Like I said before... they've made it very clear in last year's newsletter that loose certificates must be stapled and no other method is allowed. Well, that's not in the legal code nor in the handbook. Yet, it was in the newsletter and was clearly noted as a behavior that they expect us to follow. Are we going to ignore that directive simply because is isn't written in the law?

I've always said that I don't really like the monotony of the one line per act thing either. It's time consuming... BUT it's obviously what they expect us to do. I see their reasoning for it, and I do it because I don't need trouble with the Secretary of State's office. I give them what they want and what I have written direction for. That way, if there *is* an issue, I can come back to them and say, "But this is what your office put out on such and such a date..." Without that backup, it's legal interpretation and risk taking. Again... I don't want to invite trouble with them. I do it their way, whether I like it or not.

Reply by ananotary on 3/14/13 10:57pm
Msg #461292

With all due respect, you have stated your position

so many times in responses that are as long as a book. I didn't even read this entire post, to be honest. We all know your position, ENOUGH.

This falls under the category of agree to disagree. Goodness. JMHO, of course.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/14/13 11:39pm
Msg #461295

Re: With all due respect, you have stated your position

An it's because you admittedly didn't read what I wrote that you don't get my point. No offense, but if you bothered to read it, you'd understand. It's not *my* opinion, it's the opinion of our regulatory agency that matters. They set forth behavioral expectations. I do what I do because of that.

If it were *MY* opinion or desire, I would do things differently.

Reply by ananotary on 3/14/13 11:54pm
Msg #461298

I didn't have to read it since you've posted your interpreta n/m

Reply by ananotary on 3/14/13 11:57pm
Msg #461299

Re: I didn't have to read it since you've posted your

Interpretation more times than I can count on both hands in the last few months on this subject. ENOUGH. Agree to disagree.

Definition of insanity is swimming through my mind.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/15/13 12:20am
Msg #461301

Re: I didn't have to read it since you've posted your

My POINT has nothing to do with interpretation of the law... it's about what they WROTE and specifically said.

My question to YOU is, how can you read this, and come up with a different "interpretation" of their expectations. I mean, they listed it out... they expect each act to have x.y and z...including the character of the instrument. I'm not sure how there's a lot of wiggle room in their expectations. I realize and agree that the LAW says something a little different and can be interpreted many ways. My argument has nothing to do with that. Mine is with what they have written, published and clearly expect us to do... similar to their expectations written in the newsletters.

The fact that you just keep saying "Enough already!" without actually contributing anything to support your interpretation is more concerning. I still WANT somebody, ANYBODY to give me written support to the contrary. Nobody has done it except to say they simply disagree. Well, that's fine... go ahead and disagree, but don't get upset with me because you can't support your interpretation. I want to see it... I really, sincerely WISH there were anything in writing to support. Seriously!!!

I think a lot of you think I don't feel the same way you do. That's not necessarily the case.