Posted by Gerry_VT
on November 19, 2008, 1:56 pm, in reply to "Re: Another curious finding with ID"
24.63.243.7
Nine out of ten seems high. Using the wording suggested in Vermont as an example, "On this ___ day of ___ , 20__ , before me personally appeared (name of person acknowledging) to me known to be the person who executed the foregoing instrument. . ." That one just says you know the person before you is the same one who signed the instrument; it doesn't say how you know. Maybe you know because he signed in front of you. Of course, any decent notary would also establish the persons name, and a CA notary would do so by using acceptable ID documents or credible witnesses, but it doesn't mention that in this particular acknowledgement.
Just because the word personally is in the acknowledgement does not always mean you depended on personal knowledge to ID the person.
--Previous Message--
: Sad but true, I wish I didn't need to
: replace 9 of 10 notarial wording that
: will be recorded outside of CA.
: Although allowed to use other wording
: if filed outside of CA, the wording
: can't say something contrary to what
: is allowed by a CA notary. The 9 out
: of 10 have some variation of
: "signer personally know by
: (me)", without an option to
: choose provided ID to prove. I don't
: know these people from Jack, and will
: not sign that I know them when I
: don't. Since the doc does not offer
: the option to identify via
: identification, I replace the wording.
:
: Because that wording is so common from
: out of state sources, I wonder how
: many notaries in other states replace
: it, or do they KNOW all of their
: constituents.
: