Posted by pat/WA on 3/21/13 7:28pm
Msg #462439
Please don't lecture
It has been a very long day, so please don't lecture.
I found out tonight one hour before a signing that even though the husband speaks english the wife only speaks Spanish. When I confirmed the signing with the husband he neglected to mention this. I turned the signing back because I do not speak Spanish.
What I am asking was this the correct thing to do or could I have relied on the husband to translate?
|
Reply by pat/WA on 3/21/13 7:29pm
Msg #462440
Sorry, should have mentioned the wife is a non-borrowing spouse. So she does not sign the note but she does sign the DOT
|
Reply by 101livescan on 3/21/13 7:30pm
Msg #462441
Must be able to communicate with both parties in CA...can't use a translator. You did the right thing.
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 3/21/13 7:46pm
Msg #462446
Agree, Pat did the right thing for CA...but for
WA? Not sure. Haven't been able to locate a statute that covers it, but I only half tried.
Texas allows for a translator's affidavit. So, so glad that I am not working with California rules. 
|
Reply by pat/WA on 3/21/13 7:52pm
Msg #462448
Translators affidavit
Never heard of a translators affidavit. There is no mention of it that I can find in the Washington notary handbook
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 3/21/13 8:03pm
Msg #462453
Re: Translators affidavit - AGREE pat.
I could not find anything in your laws, either.
I just made mention of it because we forget when we are posting our own state laws that they may be different than those of other states. I think that without anything in your laws about that, you did what you had to do.
Newbies, even I (gasp) once upon a time, did not realize that there are vast differences. I think that California is patently wrong on this one to have such a law. In Texas, people are allowed access to the legal system by virtue of a translator in court. I am thankful that it is likewise in the world of notaries.
|
Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/21/13 8:32pm
Msg #462461
Re: Translators affidavit - AGREE pat.
If translators are to be allowed, I think there should be some kind of qualification required first in terms of language proficiency and neutrality. In a court of law, it's presumed that a translator has been pre-approved and is a neutral party, right?
I remember a situation once where I was asked to notarize the signature of an elderly woman who did not speak English (only Korean, I believe). The person who called me said he needed a POA signed by his mother. I was led to believe that I would be able to communicate with her, but not so. He was doing the translating and speaking for her. It was a long time ago, so I don't remember the details, but he got very angry with me when I said I couldn't complete the notarization and tried to intimidate me into doing so.
Something about the whole situation felt shady to me and it occurred to me that he wasn't even her son, but could have been a caretaker trying to take advantage of this woman. I had no way of knowing for sure. I did check ID and her name wasn't the same as his, although there could be a number of explanations for that, but he was was very cagey and my "spidey sense" was tingling big time...
|
Reply by LKT/CA on 3/22/13 3:33pm
Msg #462578
You nailed it, JanetK!!
<<<If translators are to be allowed, I think there should be some kind of qualification required first in terms of language proficiency and neutrality. In a court of law, it's presumed that a translator has been pre-approved and is a neutral party, right?>>>
Ten times out of ten, translators are not neutral third parties......they typically are the spouse, family member, or non-family related caregiver <that caregiver having sinister motives>. The handbooks states that information is lost in translations.
|
Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/22/13 3:36pm
Msg #462579
Re: You nailed it, JanetK!!
Thanks, Lisa. BTW, I don't think we should assume that a caregiver has sinister motives, but neither should we be complacent about it and assume they don't. We simply don't have any way to know, one way or the other.
|
Reply by LKT/CA on 3/22/13 8:38pm
Msg #462616
Re: You nailed it, JanetK!!
To clarify, my statement <that caregiver having sinister motives> means THAT caregiver....that individual circumstance where a caregiver MAY have sinister motives......not to infer that ALL caregivers have sinister motives.
|
Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/23/13 3:40am
Msg #462641
Re: You nailed it, JanetK!! Maybe not?
I just went back and re-read my post -and realized that I left out a word. Meant to say that "it occurred to me that MAYBE he wasn't even her son". I didn't really have any way of knowing for sure.
Thanks for helping bring this to light....
|
Reply by BrendaTx on 3/23/13 11:20am
Msg #462659
Re: Translators affidavit - AGREE pat.
Translator in courts in Texas....
Yes, now they must be authorized at the state level. Back in the 90's, I think they were authorized at the local level.
For instance, if you were a court reporter and your dad had recently retired and was driving your mother nuts, you might ask your boss, the judge, if your dad could be a bailiff...and maybe even a court translator...which indeed did occur in one particular case...a legendary moment in the court's history.
Mr. M became a bailiff and a case came to court that required a translator. Mr. M stepped in. The lawyer asked the non-English speaking witness a question that was 40-50 words in length, perhaps three or more lengthy sentences. Mr. M said only a few words when asking the witness the question.
The witness answered for a full minute and Mr. M listened carefully, nodded, showed surprise on his face, frowned, shook his head, said something else in Spanish to the witness, continued to discuss back and forth. Finally, Mr. M turned to the judge and said, "He said, 'No.' "
Another translator was brought in and the trial pretty much started over.
|
Reply by Ronnie_WA on 3/21/13 7:41pm
Msg #462443
Re: I would have done the same
You cannot rely on the husband to interpret as he may tell her the wrong thing, either unintentionally or otherwise. After all, she can't acknowledge she is signing for the use and purposes in the instruments when she can't read them. Neither can she swear under oath that statements aren't true when she can't read them. Well done.
|
Reply by pat/WA on 3/21/13 7:45pm
Msg #462445
Re: I would have done the same
Thanks. I feel better
|
Reply by HisHughness on 3/21/13 8:05pm
Msg #462454
Re: I would have done the same
In Texas it is not essential that the notary be able to communicate in the signer's language, which makes sense to me. If a translator is acceptable for a formal courtroom proceeding, then one certainly should be acceptable for the simple execution of an affidavit. California too often justifies its wacky reputation.
What is not acceptable is using as a translator someone who has a direct interest in the transaction, and who has the power subsequently to negatively impact the party's interest. Both are true with the husband.
|
Reply by Raimond on 3/22/13 3:11pm
Msg #462573
Re: I would have done the same
The difference being,
1. Disinterested party. The interpreter can not be a party to the transaction.
2. Courtroom interpreters are certified in the second language.
Seams straight forward too me.
|
Reply by SheilaSJCA on 3/21/13 8:16pm
Msg #462456
Re: I would have done the same
Pat, you post has me scratching my head, in light of your post just yesterday, when you were faced with a similar situation, and had no qualms about the bank employee acting as an interpreter. (Msg #462250)
Now you turn them away, because of the language barrier, even though the husband speaks english. Why is this situation any different than yesterday, when you were OK, with a bank employee acting as an interpreter? Would love to hear your rationale for this one!
Are there notary laws in place in your state that deal with signers not speaking the same lanquage as the notary? If so, that should be your guide. Not us or anyone else.
|
Reply by Lee/AR on 3/21/13 8:45pm
Msg #462463
Think Hugh nailed that one! n/m
|
Reply by TacomaBoy on 3/21/13 9:38pm
Msg #462470
Re: Think Hugh nailed that one!
I agree mostly with Hugh. However, it seems to me that without having the benefit of a CERTIFIED TRANSLATOR, a key notary function is missing: There is simply no way to know if the transaction is being performed as a "free and voluntary act". How can the notary fulfill his / her notarial duties under such circumstances? Can you say E&O claim? For this very reason, I simply stop taking such signing jobs. Perhaps a document containing the below simple statement might suffice?
El abajo firmante, quien ejecutó los documentos adjuntos, reconoció que él / ella / ellos firmaron el mismo his / her / su acto libre y voluntario, y de hecho, para los fines y propósitos que en él se mencionan.
|
Reply by Philip Johnson on 3/21/13 9:45pm
Msg #462474
That would be great if my Russian neighbors spoke Spanish. n/m
|
Reply by Philip Johnson on 3/21/13 9:43pm
Msg #462473
Using the state's ack example,
(1) For an acknowledgment in an individual capacity:
State of Washington
County of . . . . . . . .
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that (name of person) is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she) signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
How could the wife in this example acknowledge it to be her free and voluntary act to a notary's satisfaction if she can't communicate it in a language the notary understands?
I have run into this a few times and each time I err on the side of what is best for me, if I had to defend it. I suggest that they find a notary they can communicate with, and bid goodbye.
|
Reply by TacomaBoy on 3/21/13 9:49pm
Msg #462475
Russian? ;-)
Я, нижеподписавшийся, которые выполняются приложением документов, признал, что он / она / они подписали так же, как его / ее / их свободным и добровольным актом и делом, для использования и целей упомянутые в нем.
http://translate.google.com/#en/ru/The%20undersigned%2C%20who%20executed%20the%20attached%20documents%2C%20acknowledged%20that%20he%2Fshe%2Fthey%20signed%20the%20same%20as%20his%20%2F%20her%2F%20their%20free%20and%20voluntary%20act%20and%20deed%2C%20for%20the%20uses%20and%20purposes%20therein%20mentioned.
|
Reply by TacomaBoy on 3/21/13 9:52pm
Msg #462478
Russian? ;-)
Sorry! Try the below link for translation to other languages.
http://translate.google.com/#en/ru/The%20undersigned%2C%20who%20executed%20the%20attached%20documents%2C%20acknowledged%20that%20he%2Fshe%2Fthey%20signed%20the%20same%20as%20his%20%2F%20her%2F%20their%20free%20and%20voluntary%20act%20and%20deed%2C%20for%20the%20uses%20and%20purposes%20therein%20mentioned.
|
Reply by TacomaBoy on 3/21/13 9:56pm
Msg #462479
Russian? ;-)
Sorry! Try the below link for translation to other languages.
http://translate.google.com/#en/ru/The%20undersigned%2C%20who%20executed%20the%20attached%20documents%2C%20acknowledged%20that%20he%2Fshe%2Fthey%20signed%20the%20same%20as%20his%20%2F%20her%2F%20their%20free%20and%20voluntary%20act%20and%20deed%2C%20for%20the%20uses%20and%20purposes%20therein%20mentioned.
|
Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 3/22/13 1:33am
Msg #462504
What language barrier?
Hey, I've complete dozens of signings with non-English, Spanish speakers. And I know only two words in Spanish, the only two words any NSA needs to know: "Firme aqui."
Ha ha.
Actually, I might know a few more words: My mother would occasionally tell me: "Usted es loco in la cabeza" thinking I wouldn't know what she was saying but I soon caught on.
|
Reply by Raimond on 3/22/13 3:12pm
Msg #462574
I have done this several times, good decision.
|
