Posted by Terri - CA on November 20, 2008, 12:25 pm, in reply to "Re: Non-CA acks and personal knowledge"
209.221.205.86
Craig
That VT acknowledgment is acceptable by CA law. It's not asking you to violate CA law. Doesn't state "personally known" just says "known to me" thus, the signer made themselves known by way of proving their id, which I have made the entry in my journal.
However, for the record, it is completely up to the CA Notary to use which acknowledgment they want. Even if the acknowledgment may appear to be ok, the CA notary can chose not to use it.
Terri
Lancaster, CA
--Previous Message--
: --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.
:
