Posted by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 3:06pm
Msg #459549

Notary (Title of Officer)

I hope I don't catch the wrath for another dumb question!

Does anyone know if the CA code states that when filling out an Ack, we have to write our name followed by "Notary Public?" I know we have to put our name, but is the "notary public" part mandatory by law?

I searched through Section 1189 but could not find anything that says it's mandatory.

Eric

Reply by John Tennant on 3/6/13 3:11pm
Msg #459550

Eric, look at the required wording shown in the examples in your manual. That will answer your question.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 3:15pm
Msg #459553

I did, it doesn't say anywhere that it's "required." It jus seem redundant to me since our seal already has our name and says that we are a notary public.

I was just curious if it was something that was just customary or if it was actually in the law.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 3:16pm
Msg #459554

Also, we don't do it at all on a Jurat.

Reply by Don Courtney on 3/6/13 3:28pm
Msg #459557

I had the LA county recorder reject a deed once when I neglected to put the title in.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/6/13 3:50pm
Msg #459567

Notaries are not the only officers who can take acknowledgements. Take a look at the other sections of the California Civil Code near sec. 1189 that states what the certificate is. There must be a dozen different officers who can take acknowledgements. Perhaps some of those other officers don't have seals. Just guessing here, but maybe certain officers share the same seal, such as a judge and clerk in the same court. So just because writing the title is redundant for a notary, because of the seal, it may not be redundant for other officers.

Reply by Stephanie Santiago on 3/6/13 3:28pm
Msg #459556

Eric Andrist, Notary Public


Redundant or not, this is how it's done.

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/6/13 3:39pm
Msg #459563

That's NOT "just how it's done"

California Civil Code §1189(a)(1) states:

1189. (a) (1) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this
state shall be in the following form:


State of California )
County of___________ )
On______________________________________before
me,
(here insert name and title of the officer),
personally appeared_____________________________,
who proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose
name(s)
is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me
that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on
the
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which
the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the
laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature________________________________ (Seal)


It DOES state it in the code and we must adhere to it.

My .02

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 4:00pm
Msg #459569

Re: That's NOT "just how it's done"

No, that states that the Ack must be in that form. It does not state that the title must be filled in.

Reply by Gregory/CA on 3/6/13 4:06pm
Msg #459570

Rengal is correct, Eric.

The term Shall is defined as being Mandatory.

The following is within the text of the code "(here insert name and title of the officer)".

Based on this, you are required to enter Notary Public after your name; otherwise, documents may be rejected.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 4:08pm
Msg #459571

Re: Rengal is correct, Eric.

I agree, but you're missing my point. The direction is talking about the form in which the ACK must be...the wording of the ACK, not what is to be filled out on it by the notary.

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/6/13 4:37pm
Msg #459586

when it's in the bode of the code,,,,, it's the LAW

State of California )
County of___________ )
On______________________________________before
me,


(HERE INSERT NAME AND TITLE OF THE OFFICER), <------ THIS SHOULD BE IN RED FLASHING LIGHTS)

THIS IS WITHIN THE BODY OF THE CIVIL CODE, Thus, it is LAW and right here is where it tells you that you HAVE to write it in each and every time

personally appeared .....


Can it not be ANY clearer?????

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:32pm
Msg #459613

Re: when it's in the bode of the code,,,,, it's the LAW

So, on the California DMV application for a driver's license where it states to enter your First, Middle and Last name, if you don't have a middle name, should you just make one up since you MUST enter it because it's on there?

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 3:58pm
Msg #459568

That's not what I'm asking. I want to know if it's the law or just customary.

Reply by John Tennant on 3/6/13 4:09pm
Msg #459572

It is the law. The State of California dictates the exact wording required for the Acknowledgement and that includes the name AND TITLE of the person doing the acknowledgement. The form is set forth in Civil Code section 1189.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 4:11pm
Msg #459573

I'm saying, Section 1189 does not say that. It only gives the wording that must be on the ack form.

For instance, a W9 must have spaces for both a social security number and an EIN. But you don't have to fill out both. The law would read that the W9 must include space for the SSN and the EIN, but that doesn't mean both have to be filled in.

Reply by Linda Spanski on 3/6/13 4:13pm
Msg #459575

You've received excellent advice, Eric

Why would you doubt it? The law says an acknowledgment must say "your name, notary public."

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 4:19pm
Msg #459579

Re: You've received excellent advice, Eric

Advice is not the law. I'm not trying to argue, I'm just trying to find out what the law says, not what people think is supposed to be done.

Reply by John Tennant on 3/6/13 4:16pm
Msg #459577

Well Eric, it certainly is your choice as to filling in your title or not. If you do not, and it kicks back, it could cause the borrower to loose their rate lock and costing them more money, or other financial or legal problems. If that is the road you want to go down, hope you have a huge insurance policy. Bye.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 4:20pm
Msg #459582

It's not about what I want to do, I'm just trying to find out the law. If the SOS is rejecting them and the law doesn't say it's mandatory, then something's wrong.

I'm just trying to be clear. I put in a call to the SOS office.

Reply by Buddy Young on 3/6/13 4:27pm
Msg #459583

Eric, maybe you will believe the SOS. It doesn't appear that you are believeing anyone here.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 3/6/13 4:30pm
Msg #459584

Laws often don't explicitly state every conceivable detail. When that is the case, if you want to be certain the details are what you expect, you could figure out what, if any, agency has rule-making power and see if they have done so. That would be complicated in this case, because so many different kinds of officers, under so may different agencies, can take acknowledgements.

The other avenue is to search court cases and see if anyone ever had an acknowledgement considered invalid by a court because the officer forgot to write his/her title.

Of course, you could hire a lawyer to give you an opinion.

Happy searching.

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/6/13 4:46pm
Msg #459587

1189. (a) (1) Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this
state shall be in the following form:

SHALL BE - is the operative phrase here. In California law Shall = MUST

My .02

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:19pm
Msg #459607

Yes, the certificate of acknowledgement...the paper we fill out.

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/6/13 6:28pm
Msg #459612

With all due respect Mr. Andrist

Are you playing with us or are you really that obtuse?

Why on earth would you come in here to ask a question, and then argue with our answers - when we are ALL responding with the same exact answer?

My .02

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:33pm
Msg #459614

Re: With all due respect Mr. Andrist

Because no one is answering the question I asked. They're just giving their opinion about how they choose to read something. That's not what I asked for.

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/6/13 6:37pm
Msg #459615

You have had the law given to you

right out of the Code. If that is not good enough for you then that is your problem. I spend my days in code books at my day job so I do know the law and the codes.

You choose to be an annoyance to this profession forum and will not give up your petty little arguments. California code is law. A form you fill out at the DMV or any other State office is not.

My .02

I have a feeling you were the recipient of many, many swirlies in Jr. High School.....

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:40pm
Msg #459616

Re: You have had the law given to you

No, you're not paying attention. Nowhere in there does it state that the title must be included on that line. It simply states the the FORM of Acknowledgment must include that wording.

If I'm so annoying, why are you still participating?

And oh, The DMV will be surprised to learn that the information required for a Driver's License is not state law.

Reply by 101livescan on 3/6/13 5:17pm
Msg #459595

Eric, after reading this entire thread, it is clear to me that the notary public realm is very new and foreign to you, and I understand that. Most people on the planet do not understand it the way the seasoned, experienced notaries on this board do.

Being a notary comes with a huge amount of responsility, due diligence and financial liability. Especially when it comes to loan docs, rate locks, interest rates gone byebye, and lost transactions. E&O can't possibly cover the financial damage that a rookie notary could cause a client. If you own a home and other personal assets, they could be liquidated to satisfy judgments won against you in a court of law.

Just not affixing the seal and signing the acknowledgment on a DOT will cause a deal not to close, and the client loses his interest rate, incurs more interest costs,or may lose a purchase transaction and earnest money deposit.

If I were a new notary today, not knowing what I know today, I would hire a notary coach to help me through some basics. I think it would save you a lot of angst and anxiety. I also know the frustration of not knowing how little is too little to work for. I know now for sure, I won't leave my premises without a written confirmation that my fee is met at minimum $XXX covering my costs, time and effort. So far, with the exception of your $50 job to have one document signed within a mile of your home, you're working for charity and in the red. I'd like to see you start banking some real money, wouldn't you? I seriously doubt you'll see that $250 you think you've been promised. Ain't going to happen, I guarantee you.

Many people on this board have tried to help you with one very essential legal requirement about completing an acknowledgment. It is autofill for all of us, it will become that way for you too if you decide to stick with it. You need a mentor, someone close to your location who is willing to assist you through the learning ropes. It's above and beyond getting certified. As you can see, just getting certified does not make one a qualified, competent, knowledgeable signing agent who is at ease with commanding fees that are competitive in the market place.

If you don't want to hire a mentor, I think you might find it beneficial to review your Loan Signing study guide to refresh your knowledge. I think it was a major setback for your instructor to advise you to accept $75 just to get experience under your belt. How about $150, might as well reach for the moon, friend.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:26pm
Msg #459608

Which is EXACTLY why I ask these questions....I want to be completely clear on everything.

I'm not sure why so many of you have problems with me asking questions and seem to delight on belittling those who do. (And I'm not particularly pointing to you 101).

As for working for charity, that's not so. I bartered the $75 job up to $250...I think that's pretty good. I also did a signing with about 20 pages for $90. I've admitted that the $75 was partially my fault...I was just too eager to not be late to the appointment. I know now to ask how many pages are included (and notarizations) from the get-go.

I'm not sure that people giving "opinions," when I'm asking for law is of much help. You know the old saying, "Opinions are like xxx, everyone has one." In my life, instead of reaming people for being thorough, I applaud them, especially if they're doing something new.

But I'll tell you this, and I think I said it before, it takes the joy out of this job and the joy out of coming here for camaraderie, when people have such bad attitudes and like to lord their "experience" over others.

If anyone didn't know the exact law, which is what I asked, they should have just refrained from replying. Instead, they chose to be opinionated.

And finally, I never ask a question here without scouring my text book and online sources first. I went through the actual law, and I put in a call to the SOS. I just thought someone here might know for sure, and it might help someone else who wondered in the future.

As always, I'm sorry for participating as such a moron to the experts.

Reply by HisHughness on 3/6/13 5:41pm
Msg #459599

In the many years I have been a participant in this forum..

... this thread ranks near the top in pointlessness, and at the very top in obtuseness by the original poster.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 3/6/13 5:53pm
Msg #459602

So totally agree...

... Hughness. It ranks even higher than his "Horrific Ordeal" thread of yesterday, which at the time took first place for obstinance, obtuseness and while I'm at it, ingratitude.

Reply by 101livescan on 3/6/13 6:03pm
Msg #459605

Re: So totally agree...

Lots of this nonsense going on lately...

Reply by Treasure Valley Notary - Tina on 3/6/13 6:16pm
Msg #459606

Re: So totally agree...

I'm right there with you guys. I saw this thread earlier today and could not believe that it was going on. And then to see last nights thread that he totally poo'shooed the incredible advice he was given. Hate to say it, but you can't fix stupid. He won't stay in business very long at this rate.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:28pm
Msg #459611

Re: So totally agree...

But decided to add to it?! LOL

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:27pm
Msg #459610

Re: So totally agree...

You sound like such a sweet person.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:27pm
Msg #459609

Re: In the many years I have been a participant in this forum..

Sort of like you being pointless by responding that it's pointless?

Reply by rengel/CA on 3/6/13 6:42pm
Msg #459617

Check out his website

There are so many things wrong and/or illegal on it, I don't know where to start!

http://ericsproservices.com/notaryorderpage.html#sthash.yK1yvBLb.dpbs

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 6:45pm
Msg #459618

Re: Check out his website

Well that's awfully helpful! Now you're choosing to be a bully and get your cronies to attack me en mass?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 3/6/13 7:03pm
Msg #459621

Okay..I've stayed out of this til now..but just went and

looked..

Eric - as has been pointed out by all your colleagues in Cam it don't get any plainer than Ca Civil Code 1189

"Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state shall be in the following form:


State of California )
County of___________ )
On______________________________________before me,
(here insert name and title of the officer),..." etc etc


INSERT NAME AND TITLE OF OFFICER

Translation - required. The law? Ca Civil Code 1189

You're doing a great job of alienating your greatest resource for information by your insults and your mulesheadedness.

JMNSHO

Reply by 101livescan on 3/6/13 7:05pm
Msg #459623

Re: Okay..I've stayed out of this til now..but just went and

Sometimes you just gotta let em go...

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 7:10pm
Msg #459627

Re: Okay..I've stayed out of this til now..but just went and

Like you just did? People love to complain about how stupid I am and how long this is going on, and then just add to it themselves! LOL

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 7:10pm
Msg #459625

Re: Okay..I've stayed out of this til now..but just went and

Clearly you haven't read the other posts. Why did you feel the need to put exactly the same thing that other people have already put? Just to rub salt into the wound?

Trust me, of the people responding here so rudely...I could care less to have any contact with them. I choose not to have such negative people in my life.

I feel sorry for people who feel the need to lord themselves over others.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 3/6/13 7:28pm
Msg #459635

Guess I was foolish enough to think that if you weren't

listening to them you might listen to someone else.

So sorry for trying to get you to see - and doing it politely. I should have known better.

Hope you never need help from anyone here again...

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 7:31pm
Msg #459636

Re: Guess I was foolish enough to think that if you weren't

How can you have thought I wasn't listening when I replied specifically to each one and explained why it wasn't what I was seeking?

Why do you hope I never need help from anyone here again? Will people also be vindictive and not offer it?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 3/6/13 7:36pm
Msg #459638

Eric, you obviously are looking for an argument

I am not.

Good luck in your career.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 7:52pm
Msg #459642

Re: Eric, you obviously are looking for an argument

I wonder what all of you were looking for? I was merely looking for an answer to the question, not opinions. If I wanted to argue, I'd be on every post in this forum....like some of the others who seem to love harassing.

Reply by Notarysigner on 3/6/13 7:19pm
Msg #459631

see page two right hand side...that's it


http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/notary/forms/notary-newsletter-2013.pdf

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 7:24pm
Msg #459634

Re: see page two right hand side...that's it

I don't see anything on Pg 2 referring to adding your title to an acknowledgment. It's only talking about the pre-printed wording of an Ack and Jurat.

Reply by Christyl/CA on 3/6/13 7:39pm
Msg #459640

Yesterday you told us....

That you made a mistake and refused to fix it. You also said that you accepted a $75 job and completed it and then complained to the SS that you wanted more money and think you are getting $250.00?! (I am sure that $250 was way more than that SS is getting) You asked a question, and everyone is giving the answer and you still refuse to listen? They are frustrated.... WE are frustrated. If you ask for advice, take it. There is a wealth of knowledge on this board. My advice, again, is to have a mentor. You should follow someone around and learn before you jump up and complete loan signings.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 7:56pm
Msg #459643

Re: Yesterday you told us....

Excuse me?! I never said I refused to fix anything!

I NEVER said I "accepted" a $75 job, I said they quoted $75. The "agreement" from them did not come until after I did the signing.

I have no idea what your point is about the $250.

No, no one has answered....they've only given opinions. They keep pointing to a code that does NOT say anything about title being mandatory, it simply talks about the wording that must be in the pre-printed ack.

So I ask a couple of questions, and you all assume it means I'm totally unqualified. I actually took the loan signing class twice. I took it again after passing the test just to get a hands-on version of the home study I did.

So you really need to be more prepared before you start accusing.

Reply by MistarellaFL on 3/6/13 8:04pm
Msg #459647

No, no one has answered....they've only given opinions.

Uh, hem.
Even judges only give opinions, Eric.
Judges only give their opinion on their interpretation of the law.
You've asked us for our opinions, and you have them.
Take them or leave them.

Reply by BrotherOwner on 3/6/13 8:11pm
Msg #459649

Re: Why doesn't everyone just take a break, I think Harry's

server, and everyone else's blood pressure are starting to smoke. The subject has been covered.

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 8:41pm
Msg #459659

Re: Why doesn't everyone just take a break, I think Harry's

I agree. It's just hard not to respond when you're being attacked by bullies. (and clearly, someone will attack that sentence!)

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/6/13 8:39pm
Msg #459656

Re: No, no one has answered....they've only given opinions.

I never once asked for an opinion.

Judges do NOT always give their opinion of the law. If the law says "It is against the law to cause the death of another human being," what part of that would be an opinion? The law would be clear and no opinion needed.

Reply by John Tennant on 3/6/13 10:19pm
Msg #459708

I think Harry ought to "boot" this one. n/m

Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/7/13 2:22am
Msg #459728

Yep. Appears to have crossed into "troll" territory. n/m

Reply by Eric Andrist on 3/7/13 10:13am
Msg #459769

Re: I think Harry ought to "boot" this one.

Such nice people here!