Until 2019 when RULONA went into effect in Vermont, I used to use the "to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument" all the time. I think, on the East Coast, this means the notary has taken whatever steps are required by law to establish the identity of the signer. As long as the notary has followed the CA rules for that, I wouldn't think there's a problem. It definitely does NOT mean "personally known to me"
The OP has not provided the text of the acknowledgement they are being asked to use. The current MA wording may be found at
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter222/Section15
The wording there starts out
''On this ____ day of ___________, 20__, before me, the undersigned notary public, ________________________ (name of document signer) personally appeared, proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which were _______________________, to be the person whose name is
signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that (he) (she) signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. "
That part seems fine. The next part calls for the notary to list the capacity of the signer, if the signer is claiming to represent someone. Notice that the capacity statement comes after "acknowledged to me". So the certificate is just saying the signer claimed a certain capacity; the notary is not certifying that the signer's claim is true. |
