Had a client hire me to execute this affidavit. They are the buyer on the affidavit and they are in a different state. The language at the beginning states that they both appeared before me, the undersigned authority, but they won’t. They do have separate acknowledgements so I would only be notarizing the seller. My thinking was to line through the buyers name and initial it as I would normally do for statements like this one. However, the buyer (who is a corporation) doesn’t want that because, they say it shows both parties entering into the agreement. Anyone have experience with this type of affidavit with both parties not signing together? Them not signing doesn’t matter to me, because I am only notarizing the sellers signature, we do that all the time, but I haven’t had an affidavit where it says both parties appeared before me and then each signature was notarized in different states by different notaries. What am I missing here?
I agree w/Corp. ONE contract, separate Ack for Buyer and Seller/both parties to the Contract, notarized by 2 different notaries. You shouldn’t be messing with the body of the contract.
I don’t mess with the body of the contract. There was more than what I posted. My curiosity was over the wording at the beginning. I don’t think I have had an Affidavit that included that language for both parties together, stating they appeared before me, as the notary. Thanks for your response.
I agree with you that you should have lined through the name of the person who did not appear before you. You are only doing that on your notary statement and nowhere else in the contract.
@takenotenotaryservices Great discussion and thank you for sharing your insights on this matter. I have encountered similar situations where the party engaging my services has attempted to guide me towards actions that reside in what I would consider “gray” areas, potentially crossing the line of legal compliance. In such instances, my approach would be to directly and professionally communicate to the representative of the corporation about my notarial requirements, especially when the corporation doesn’t want any alterations to their documents. These requirements are, of course, rooted in adherence to my state’s specific statutes and regulations governing notarization practices. I would clearly explain that, given the circumstances presented, I would be fulfilling my duty by attaching a separate, official certificate. This separate certificate would specifically designate the individual whose signature I am officially witnessing and validating. Concurrently, on the corporation’s original document, I would include a clear, concise, and easily identifiable written statement directing the reader to locate and review the attached, loose certificate for the notarization details.
You can’t leave someone on a notarized document who did not appear. It would be a split signing, that document would be signed and notarized wherever the buyer is. Signers can’t tell you what your acknowledgement needs to look like. They are wrong.
There is a seperate acknowledgment for both. The opening ststement of the affidavit, that I posted is what threw me off. I don’t think I have had an affidavit that included that language for both parties when it was a split signing.
Wait, so the opening statement was just the body of the agreement? That would not be changed by a notary as long as you only notarize the acknowledgement for the person in front on you. Sorry I misunderstood. The signer is right you leave that page alone and only notarize the person you are with.
Right, which is what I am doing. The wording just threw me off for a bit. I just don’t recall seeing that language anywhere but the acknowledgment certificate before.
This affidavit document seems a little wonky for me (I am in Washington state) because the language sounds like that of a Jurat or a Verification Upon Oath or Affirmation, rather than an acknowledgement like it says in the title.
Did you do a single line across signature line of the party WHO DID NOT APPEAR IN FRONT OF YOU, and then only acknowledge the signature of the signer who was indeed signing in your presence? Or how did you handle this?
(And it seems like a Representative Acknowledgement would be needed if the buyer is planning to sign as a representative of a corporation.)
percent. One solution would be to print two “Affidavit of Contract” and have the party you are meeting sign their page and leave the blank page for the other party.
The other party is in California and I am in Tennessee.
If I understand this correctly:
- Excerpt of Affidavit pictured above is on page 1 of the Affidavit.
- Both the seller and the buyer are listed on said page 1.
- Parties are being signed separately at separate locations by separate notaries - one in TN and the other in CA.
- There are separate Acknowledgments provided, one for each signer.
If all this is correct, think of it this way: You have a split signing of a purchase or refi for a married couple. He’s signing in TN and the wife is signing in CA. All documents list both their names – Deed of Trust/Mortgage lists vesting as John Smith and Mary Smith, husband and wife with right of survivorship. We don’t line through the person we’re not notarizing. We only make sure our notarial certificate shows ONLY the person appearing before us. Same thing whether it’s a corporation, a Trust, or an individual.
Does that doc come with an Acknowledgement or a Jurat?
Insofar as “Representative Acknowledgement”, some states don’t use those.
Correct, the verbiage threw me off listing both as appearing before me on page one. But, I did my own research and figured it out. If the certificate had both I wouldn’t notarize it as it was.
You dont line thru and you notarize it as it is the seller is the only one signing the document, so when you notarize it with only one signature that correct.
That is the thoughtful thing to do.