Posted by walthtz on 10/24/13 7:52am
Msg #489524

What do you do?

A document in a package that has the following tittle:

Permission to Provide HUD Statement and TIL Disclosure Statement to Broker

Then the BR's Sign.
Then the following:

STATE OF-
COUNTY OF
--
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid do hereby certify that all of the parties who have signed above are personally known to me as the person(s) who executed the foregoing instrument bearing the date of
-- -------------' personally appeared before me in said jurisdiction for the purposes herein contained.


Witness my hand and official seal this the day of _

Notary Public

Residing in County My commission expires:


Now, This is NOT a Notarial wording.
There is NO wording here that says Acknowledged or sworn by & the wording is also incorrect, where it says: personally known to me, which the BR;s are not.

So, your thoughts?

Reply by walthtz on 10/24/13 7:54am
Msg #489525

I should have added here that the this is NOT Notarial Wording in New Jersey.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/24/13 7:57am
Msg #489526

Unless they're personally known to me I wouldn't sign it

if I can change it from "personally known" to "proven to me to be" fine - but I'd also remove all references to notary public and put in "Signing Agent" - and naturally, absolutely no commission information or stamp.

OR - attach a loose cert.

Reply by walthtz on 10/24/13 8:07am
Msg #489531

Re: Unless they're personally known to me I wouldn't sign it

attaching a loose certificate would be the same as notarizing it.

Also, you can't change the body of the statement.
I was penalized a while back when I changed the wording where it said under the penalties of CA & put NJ in there. I was told at the time I was unable to change the body of the statement in my capacity as a Notary.
I would have to be a lawyer for that to happen.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/24/13 8:13am
Msg #489533

Changing the body of it sure beats signing a false statement

Call hiring party and see what they suggest. But I, personally, wouldn't sign off on this as a notary - it's not a compliant notary cert. Let them tell you what they want but just let them know you can't do it.

Reply by Darlin_AL on 10/24/13 8:21am
Msg #489534

SOS told me "known to me" is considered that you have

properly identified your signer, if you don't know them. Then there's the loose cert format where you check the box indicating whether or not ID was used. BUT, that's for this state. Before I got that clarified, I put in an asterisk & added the wording to their cert if I didn't attach my own. My suggestion would be to check w/your SOS to see how they view it for your state. IF you got penalized for doing the proper thing, by that company, you've got to use the loose cert for them, I guess. So far my scribbling has been passed by TS and SL, and perhaps NLS. As for the form itself, it appears to be another waiver/release by the way you describe it.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 10/24/13 8:28am
Msg #489535

Here, personally known goes beyond just identifying

them one time. Per our manual:

"Personally Known
“Personally known” means having an acquaintance, derived from association with the individual,
which establishes the individual’s identity with at least a reasonable certainty"

I would imagine it's not very different elsewhere - the word "personally", to me, makes it a closer association than just looking at an ID.

JMO

Reply by jba/fl on 10/24/13 8:33am
Msg #489536

Re: Here, personally known goes beyond just identifying

Which is why we are also told "who provided (DL, etc.) as identification" is to be used as an either/or to satisfy the state's law. If I just got your ID from you, proving you are who you say you are, I do not know you.

Reply by NVLSlady/VA on 10/24/13 9:31am
Msg #489557

"Can't change the body"

<<"I was penalized a while back when I changed the wording where it said under the penalties of CA & put NJ in there. I was told at the time I was unable to change the body of the statement">>

Since it's in the notarial section, I believe you can - and initial (clean line thru "personally known," adding "proven to me to be" would have been my fix)

TC gave me a fit couple of wks ago about wanting me to cross out notarial section and add wording to the cert for their Note. The loose ack I added at time of signing wasn't good enough for them; then they <refused> to sign off that "no notarial errors were made by notary," and that changes/additions were only being made per their request.

Just incredible. If blue, they'll say "green," . . . wet, they'll say "dry," . . . high, they'll say "low"

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 10/24/13 8:43am
Msg #489539

Use your own ack, or cross out wording that doesn't apply..

it'll be messy, if you do the latter, but if its consistent with your State notarial laws, then you should be fine.

If you use a substitute acknowledgement more like a general one, then you should be good too.

But first consult with your hiring party to let them know of your changes.

Reply by Notarysigner on 10/24/13 9:35am
Msg #489560

I do it all the time, in Ca you can't use personally known

to me!

Reply by VT_Syrup on 10/24/13 10:38am
Msg #489585

This cert does not indicate whether the signer took an oath/affirmation, or gave an acknowledgement. Without knowing which of these acts is requested, you can't figure out which kind of loose acknowledgement to attach. (I suppose they could be looking for a notarial signature witnessing, which is allowed in a few states.)

Reply by desktopfull on 10/24/13 11:07am
Msg #489600

I've had that statement on 3 HUD's this month. I have struck through the "personally known to me" part on all of them and written in "provided FL DL for Id" and initialed the change. So far I haven't had a problem in handling them in this fashion. I will not sign a false statement for anyone, it isn't worth going to jail.

Reply by John Tennant on 10/24/13 12:17pm
Msg #489612

I never alter the provided ACK, or JURAT. I always line it out and refer to CA requirements (I have a stamp for this provided by NR) and provide a loose ACK or JURAT that is compliant with the State of Ca. SOS. In 6 years I have never had one kick back.

Reply by desktopfull on 10/24/13 12:58pm
Msg #489618

This isn't a notarization though. This is a statement that they are asking you to sign. I will not sign a false statement. I suggested to the TC that is using this form that it would be a good idea to add "or provided satisfactory proof to be" if they didn't want the statement altered and initialed at the closing table. They said they would talk to their attorney concerning the matter. They also agreed that the notary isn't going to know every person that they close for personally and accepted the form with the correction.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 10/25/13 2:04am
Msg #489714

To me, it looks like they intended for it to be a notarization, but have a very different idea of what an acknowledgment certificate should look like. I agree with John. I'd completely replace the verbiage with a CA compliant ack certificate, but in our state, we don't have wiggle room for what the wording should say. That makes it a pretty cut-and-dried decision.

Reply by SharonMN on 10/24/13 12:55pm
Msg #489617

This looks like an ack to me. Replace with compliant ack for your state.

(Also note that in the original language you are not certifying that the borrowers are "personally known" to you to be a certain identity, just that they are the people who signed the doc, which if they signed it before you, is certainly true.)

Reply by LKT/CA on 10/24/13 1:53pm
Msg #489634

I see the doc as - title: Permission to Provide HUD Statement and TIL Disclosure Statement to Broker; and then doc wording goes in the middle, then the borrower's signature (i.e. Then the BR's Sign.), then the following: STATE OF - COUNTY OF

Looks like an acknowledgment, non-compliant for CA. I'd draw a diagonal line, write "See attached CA compliant Ack" and add a loose cert.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 10/24/13 2:40pm
Msg #489645

Exactly what I'd do as well. n/m

Reply by jnew on 10/25/13 11:54am
Msg #489752

I would examine your state notary rules and see if Witness and Attestation of Signature is allowed as a notarial act. If it is, your only remaining issue would seem to be the phrase "personally known to me" I will not rely on personal knowledge of a signer. I would not have to state that the signature was proper without some written evidence. I worked with a realtor for twenty years and did not know that she never uses her first name. When I notarized her mortgage she signed with her correct first name as it appeared on her DL, which was never known by me. I personally knew her only by her middle name.

The drafter of this notarial certificate should have added the option of written evidence to avoid the problem.