Posted by Marian_in_CA on 3/26/13 2:26pm
Msg #463147

Rejecting a perfectly legal notarization

Some companies are super duper picky... and they don't "get" the concept of an acknowledgment.

Had a document wherein the signers signed 2 days previous. No big deal, because the document calls for an acknowledgment. My notarial certificate is dated two days after the signatures. Legally, it's a perfectly fine notarization.

The company has rejected the document because the "dates don't match" and they want me to go back, on my dime, to "fix" it. In their head, if the dates don't match, it's no good.

As it turns out, there's an ID issue with the signers. One of them required credible witnesses to sign at the time. She's very disabled and ill and her ID had expired. They since went to a LOT of trouble (and I'm not kidding about what it took...it was pretty tough) and managed to get her ID renewed with the CA DMV (an hour away, by the way), but they have to wait for the card to arrive. The DMV office they went to did not issue one of those reported new paper IDs that have all of the information... just a regular paper receipt that clearly states, "This is not an ID."

So the company calls and says it MUST be done by Friday. The wife doesn't have her ID yet and their credible witnesses are not available (out of town). They don't have anyone else who qualifies to be a credible witness.

I've already explained that the notarization is good, but this company is adamant that it's not.

I've shown them the handbook, read the code... told them it's good.

I like this couple a lot. They're really sweet and I'm happy to go back, even on my dime, but there's nothing I can do, legally, without current, CA acceptable ID... even though I'm 100% confident as to her identity. Sadly, personal knowledge is no longer acceptable in CA, and as I said, her CWs are not available...and there isn't anyone else eligible to do it due to the nature of the document on conflict of interest issues.

Anyone have some ideas? I feel so bad for this couple. Corporate lawyers can be pretty ridiculous.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 3/26/13 2:37pm
Msg #463151

What a load of BS! You've pointed them to our code and handbook that we MUST abide by. I'm sure you also told them they can call the SOS office for verification.

Maybe the company should have signers "correct" their signing date to match your Acknowledgment?

Reply by Stoli on 3/26/13 2:41pm
Msg #463153

Wouldn’t that require a new entry in the journal?

As she stated, they don’t have ID to verify the identity for the journal entry.

Reply by Yoli/CA on 3/26/13 2:47pm
Msg #463156

Comment made in jest, Stoli.

But, why would it require another journal entry? Signers are not re-signing. Notary is not notarizing. Signers are simply correcting the incorrect date they entered on the document.

Again, just a joke. If said company won't accept a perfectly legal notarization, surely they wouldn't pursue any gray-area actions .........

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/26/13 3:12pm
Msg #463162

Re: Comment made in jest, Stoli.

In this case, the company has the original and won't send it back. They want a new copy signed and notarized on the same date. I'd be happy to comply with their wishes, if I could. Not that it even needs to be done... it's complete unnecessary anyway.

Talking to some of these lawyers is ridiculous. I mean, I thought understanding the law was part of their job.

I've tried to explain to them the requirements and differences between the types of notarizations to no avail. They have it in their heads that I did something wrong. Psssh. And this couple is suffering because of it... that's what really make me upset. They don't deserve it.

Reply by BobtheElder on 3/26/13 11:00pm
Msg #463235

Re: Comment made in jest, Stoli.

Marian, I see your problem in that one line:

"Talking to some of these lawyers is ridiculous. I mean, I thought understanding the law was part of their job. "

I once had a conference room full of bank attorneys try and tell me that I MUST accept their comvoluted wording for a jurat.... it took five of them to even try to intimidate me into it, and when that didn't work they found someone else to do it their way... a month later they were back and did it correctly... and it cost their employer thousands of dollars in fines and penalties... yet, they insisted theirs was the right way, even if the court said differently.... it's not that they don't know the law, its just that so much of what they know just isn't so...

Reply by Clem/CA on 3/26/13 2:43pm
Msg #463154

Tell the company to pound sand

Reply by Priscilla Witman on 3/26/13 2:46pm
Msg #463155

LIKE. n/m

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 3/26/13 2:55pm
Msg #463157

Well, this is indeed a huge dilemma

Here are two desperate-measure suggestions, either one of which could be illegal (as Yoli and Stoli have intimated) or unworkable, etc.
1. Get the original document that they signed and you notarized. Take it back to them and have them add date with the date of your ack. Don't have them sign again, just have them date for the day you notarized. I'm not even going to analyze the legality or illegality of this - greater minds then mine can rule on this. All I know is we are not the date police. Technically, all you are doing is taking a document back to them they already signed and having them put another date on it ...not the date they signed (or did you have them sign again?) but the date they attested to you that that was their signatures on the doc.... Fact is, they don't even need a notary to do this; tell corporate to send the pizza delivery guy to have them add the date of your notarization.

2. Have them call DMV and see if they even issue the paper extension with the photo and then see if they can go back and get that done on the spot. Have them call DMV and see if they can issue an "emergency" senior citizen identification card (is she a senior?)

3. Oh, well. If corporate is so boneheaded, so sorry! ... your notarization is all perfectly legal, acceptable, etc. but some lawyer can't get past that because the dates don't match! I know your concern is with the signers and you want to help them and that you have gone out of your way to deal with corporate!

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 3/26/13 3:11pm
Msg #463161

In fact, the more I think about it ...

have corporate FedEx the signed doc back to them with instructions to add the date of your notarization and FedEx it back to corporate.... leaving you completely out of the picture. Yay!

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/26/13 3:08pm
Msg #463159

I have told them do that... more or less. But they are still hounding this couple to get it done. The only reason I care is because I actually like these people and they've been through enough with this.

BTW, it's been a real issue getting the paperwork done, because I was the second notary to handle the documents. The first one illegally notarized her signature using the expired ID. See: Msg #455931 for the history.

When we did this, their LO was perfectly FINE with how we handled it, even had it approved by his supervisor. Their loan actually already funded and I was paid. Now, their legal department is having conniptions about it for "compliance" reasons and are threatening this poor couple to get it fixed. They just don't need this headache.

Reply by HisHughness on 3/26/13 3:10pm
Msg #463160

I don't EVER have a problem telling a hiring party ...

... to do it themselves if they don't accept what I do as legal and I know that it is. If I have explicit directions telling me up front what they want, then I'll do it and charge commensuratedly. Otherwise, I make sure my work is done appropriately. If a hiring party is so clueless they don't know what is appropriate, that's their problem, as long as they have enough of their wits about them to write my check.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/26/13 3:19pm
Msg #463163

Re: I don't EVER have a problem telling a hiring party ...

The funny thing about it is... they have already paid me. This mess is a result of the file going through their legal department for compliance reasons *after the fact* and it's the legal department pitching a fit... over nothing.

Lawyers.

Sorry, Hugh. You know it's true.

Reply by Notarysigner on 3/26/13 4:27pm
Msg #463173

Re: I don't EVER have a problem telling a hiring party ...

Marian, first of all (you of all people, Grain of salt added for effect) follow the law, Forget those lawyers, tell um to sue you.
2. Because you like these people, do it, get paid, then turn their ass in using your 8225 government code as backup and also to protect you if something happens done the road.
3. Do it and don't post about it, it'll be your little secret. ROFL

Reply by LKT/CA on 3/26/13 4:42pm
Msg #463177

I'd throw it back at them (blame them)

I let them know in no uncertain terms that this is THEIR fault - if they wanted the dates on the docs and the acknowledgment to match, they should not have had the docs signed before the clients appeared before a notary. Yes, of course, if the docs is signed ahead of time and the cert is ack then it's legal - I definitely get that. But my point is this company is having a fit about the DATES matching. Well....if they want the dates to match (docs & cert) then they need to tell their clients NOT to sign/date until they appear before the notary.

I'd definitely throw this back at them as it being THEIR fault. You've done your correct/legal notarization and THAT'S THAT!!! Too darn bad - they can't have what they WANT....they get was is LAWFUL, period. Make sure you tell them it's THEIR fault and their fault ALONE.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/26/13 5:46pm
Msg #463196

Re: I'd throw it back at them (blame them)

Oh, I did!!!

Their LO and his supervisor even said it was ok... even though I knew it was. This is a different department.. it's the legal review office for the Title company throwing a fit. The lender actually doesn't care... it's already funded recorded and done. It's the TC that's getting huffy over something silly over a document that doesn't even get recorded. The DOT was also notarized two days after, and they don't have an issue with that... and it recorded just fine.

I told them today that it's just too darn bad. They're just going to have to wait for the State of California to send the poor woman her ID. Heh...we all know how fast the state runs things.

Reply by Shelly_FL on 3/26/13 9:46pm
Msg #463224

When you used two credible witnesses, was their sworn

affidavit on a separate piece of paper? If so, did you retain it or attach it to the notarized document?

Our FL handbook (page 33) advises us to keep it in our records rather than attach it. I would not have a problem using said sworn affidavit a second time in another instance to document the individual's identification.

Reply by Julie/MI on 3/26/13 9:34pm
Msg #463223

what came first? title insurance or the CA handbook?

You say some companies so I am assuming this is a mortgage related document not a general notarization.

The title insurance underwriters cannot keep track of all 50 states notary laws and they are guaranteeing clear title.

I don't blame the title companies one bit.

My state does not require a stamp, but if I tell my clients that I'm not using one because my states says I don't have too, I won't be working.

It's unfortunate that the expired id won't work, how did the person suddenly become not them based on an expiration date?

I think if one was not in the title business prior to becoming a NSA that does "signings", one is looking one sided from their prespective and doesn't get a grasp of title insurance in general.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 3/27/13 4:34am
Msg #463253

Re: what came first? title insurance or the CA handbook?

I think there are some missing bits of info (or I just forget... ) First, how did the couple get the document to sign it two days before the date of the notarization? Also, what kind of instructions came with the document, i.e. did they say anything about the date or when the transaction was to be completed? Who arranged the appointment, who was the document sent to, etc.

Unless there was some kind of implicit or explicit understanding that the document should be signed and notarized at the same time, I don't see that they have any grounds for expecting the notary to go back and redo it at her own expense, title insurance notwithstanding, especially if this was general notary work.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 3/27/13 5:37pm
Msg #463383

Re: what came first? title insurance or the CA handbook?

Janet, hopefully I can answer some of that.

This was a Wells Fargo simple refi package that only had two notarizations in it. It is sent directly to the borrowers with VERY specific instructions. Ordinarily, borrowers sign everything on their own and pay for their own notary. They'd done it January, but they missed a lot of initials/signatures and the notary who they paid for notarized the wife's signature using the expired ID. It expired 3 years ago.

As a result, they had to completely redraw the loan. Their loan officer then called me and hired me directly to handle the package to make sure everything was done properly. Rather than have the borrowers pay, Wells Fargo offered to foot the bill, provided I not just notarize signatures, but walk them through and make sure everything got signed and initialed, too.

There were no instructions about the customers signing in front of the notary. Their loan officer and his supervisor approved the situation -- knowing that I had to make a return trip because of the borrower's ID issues, which I didn't know about until I got there. I had assumed (silly me) that since their signatures were notarized the month prior, there weren't any ID issues. I was told the only issues were missing signatures and initials and they just needed additional help. In fact, Wells Fargo (the lender) is fine with the situation. They funded the loan and recorded the deed...which also was notarized 2 days after it was signed because of the ID issues.

The issue is a second document, a Title document. It's the title company that's being difficult. They insist *I* did something wrong, even though we all know I didn't. Wells Fargo is actually on my side, which is nice. Once I read to them, verbatim, from the handbook and workbook and gave them legal code all was well. Title, however, didn't think so. Some insistent goober at the TC has this bug in her pants and insists that a signature can't be notarized if the notary didn't physically see the signer sign and date everything the same day. Not surprisingly, this person is NOT a notary, just thinks she knows better because she's a lawyer.

On a side note, though, the borrower actually got her ID in the mail today...which was shockingly fast... and I popped over and notarized this document for them again with them signing as of today's date. The title company should be happy now, even though it was completely unnecessary.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 3/27/13 6:31am
Msg #463261

2 possible things come to my mind

1. Could be the target investor (on the 2ndary market) that flat-out won't take the loan this way - and if you think Provident is picky, some of the investors can be far beyond them, OR

2. Somewhere inside the walls of WF sits a funder having a really bad hair-day, refusing to budge and finding some weird kind of personal satisfaction in the ability to say "no".