Posted by Craig / CA
on November 19, 2008, 6:51 pm, in reply to "Non-CA acks and personal knowledge"
69.235.24.46
--Previous Message--
: Nine out of ten seems high. Using the
: wording suggested in Vermont as an
: example, "to me
: known to be the person"
Thank you, you quoted the wording that is at issue.
"To me known to be." 1st issue, NO I don't know them, but they can prove their identity with proper ID.
In CA we could (not any more) either personally know them, or have them provide proper ID.
Why do I not know them? Because CA defines how a notary "knows" someone. I won't bore you with the definition because as of Jan '(06?), CA notaries can no longer identify someone by personal knowledge.
2nd issue, Because that form of identity is defined in the notarial wording, and we are forbidden from ID'ing a person that way anymore.... we must replace the wording.
Ergo the 9 out of 10 non-CA wording(s) we must replace.
Why does this become an issue with out of state notaries who may be following their states wording, because the all powerful Legislature passed a law that said all documents recorded in Ca that are notarized must comply with CA state specific wording.
Why should this matter to a non CA notary? While you may be complying with your states wording laws, if it is filed in CA you are doing your client a disservice because their document will be rejected.