If a legal issue arises, how does the notary prove that the notarization was proper?
In States that require a sequential journal, the signatures of the signer, and ID’d and sworn witnesses are recorded. These are available to the public if properly requested.
However, in States without a mandated sequential journal, a separate credible witness affidavit should be attached to the document to prove that the signer was properly ID’d. This protects the notary’s integrity.
This would only be useful in certain cases.
Use case 1: a mobile notary performs a seller-side purchase signing and sends the package to the title company. Later, the real owner of the real estate claims he never sold the property and never met with a notary. The title company produces the witness affidavit, which on the surface, provides some evidence the notary tried to identify the signer, and provides leads for further investigation.
Use case 2: just like case 1, but the notary is hired by the signer and the signer keeps all the documents, and the affidavit is never seen again.
Use case 3: just like case 1, but the notary keeps the affidavit. The notary is able to provide some evidence to police, title company, court, etc. that the notary tried to identify the signer, and it provides leads for further investigation.
Wow. People really do that? What a world we live in.
Have you read the news stories claiming that a mortgage had been taken out using the former home of Elvis Presley, Graceland, as security for the loan? It turned out the mortgage was fake, through and through.
The California Civil Code Section 1185 acknowledgments; requisites is clear on what’s acceptable, and the civil penalty is harsh.
It’s hard to interpret this post since it isn’t in reply to any particular post. I would presume it’s a reply to the original post, where the gist of thegemininotary’s question is whether the lettering of the signer’s signature should be exactly copied into the notary’s certificate. But this post doesn’t seem to be a reply to that question.
thegemininotary’s profile mentions Burbank, so I’d agree the CA civil code is relevant.
I’ve had several of these type of requests. However, if their valid photo ID has a scribble signature on it, I have always accepted it as their “legal” signature and never had documents rejected. If they don’t have such a legal signature and the instructions state to sign exactly as typed below their signature, I have them do so, even if they are not used to signing that way
Thank you Ashton, yeah it went off in a tangent but it was good. I learned a lot of everyone. Thank you for acknowledging my original question. 
I once did a reverse mortgage signing on a TV tray in a 10x10 bedroom while the 80-year-old signer chain-smoked Marlboro cigarettes. So let’s now clear the air on this signature issue. I was told DECADES ago by a Title Company’s agent that the “rule” was if you can’t read the signer’s signature, then that’s the full name. However, if you can read it, the signature must match the name as printed on the document.
If a title company wants to place restrictions on how the signer signs, such as sign in a certain ink color, or, when the signature is legible, sign exactly as printed in the document, fine. I’d be happy to point out that instruction to the signer. But the instruction isn’t coming from me. In many cases it isn’t a legal requirement.
Disagree here, Joe. Coming from the other side of the table (the title side) after 30 years as a real estate paralegal, yes, signature must match the name as printed on the document - however, the name printed on the document had better be the name as they took title. If the name on the ID and signature there is different, that is a problem (again, thankfully FL addresses this).
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
