Lisa J. Delany
But why did the notary cross out the acknowledgment clause and append a California Notary Acknowledgment page with other language and without calling?
Massachusetts and California notary laws are very different. The California notary and acknowledgment laws are in Civil Code § 1189 (2025) and the laws on jurat are in Government Code § 8202 (2025).
Its acknowledgment statute is specific and limits the notary’s role to identity verification only. Section 1189(a)(1) requires:
Any certificate of acknowledgment taken within this state shall include a notice at the top of the certificate of acknowledgment in an enclosed box stating: “A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document.” This notice shall be legible.
California’s jurat law is similar, and its mandatory disclaimer in § 8202(b) requires:
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
California’s § 1189(a)(4) also imposes up to a $10,000 penalty if a notary makes a known false material statement.
Therefore, many California notaries deem their laws must take precedence and they cannot inquire whether the document execution was voluntary or for the stated purpose nor should they certify the veracity of such material facts or accept a document certifying the contents are truthful and accurate.
The first possible solution can be found in California’s § 1189(b) that allows using another state’s acknowledgment clause for documents to be filed in that state. But California notaries may still refuse to use the Massachusetts acknowledgment clause, especially for documents signed representationally (trustee, corporate officer, etc.), as § 1189(b) concludes:
. . . provided the form does not require the notary to determine or certify that the signer holds a particular representative capacity or to make other determinations and certifications not allowed by California law.
It appears the two states are in conflict as Massachusetts requires either an individual or representational acknowledgment of a voluntary act for the stated purpose or a jurat that the document is to the best of knowledge and belief, yet the California Codes prohibit the notary from making such statements.
Is there another solution?
There is actually a difference in the Massachusetts and California statutes.
Massachusetts requires the signatory, and not the notary, acknowledges that they signed the document voluntarily for its stated purpose or certifies that the contents of the document are truthful or accurate to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief. Only the signatory is the required actor, not the notary, and therefore the two states are complementary and do not conflict as the Massachusetts clauses do not request any prohibited actions from California notaries.
California notaries may still balk as the Massachusetts statutes require the notary inquires whether the signatory acknowledges their voluntary action or whether the document is to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief and this mere inquiry could be viewed by a California notary as a prohibited action and tantamount to their making their own material certification of the signatory’s actions.
The real solution is in a single word in M.G.L. c. 222, § 15(b), which provides:
A notary public shall take the acknowledgment of the signatory or mark of persons acknowledging for themselves, or in any representational capacity by using substantially the following form . . .
Similarly, M.G.L. c. 183, § 42 provides the notary forms in the Appendix to c. 183 may be used, but “. . . those forms shall not preclude the use of any other forms lawfully used . . .”
Therefore, the suggested Massachusetts notary and jurat clauses can be edited to clarify all actions are by the signatory without the notary making any material statements of fact. The following acknowledgement edit is suggested:
“Then
personally appeared . . . who acknowledged stated to me that the
document was signed voluntarily for its stated purpose . . .”
Or the following jurat clause edit is suggested:
“. . . and who stated, swore or affirmed to me . . .”
Massachusetts notaries are accustomed to inquiring about the signatory’s actions, whereas California notaries may believe merely asking the intention is proscribed under their laws. Instead, the one word change to “stated” allows the signatory to essentially say “Hi, I’m Bob. I’m the (trustee/president/etc.) of ABC, and I meant to sign this document.” The California notary is not then making their own representations or certifications, rather they simply heard the signatory’s offered statement of intentions.
M.G.L. c. 222, § 15(h) also provides direction to the Land Court Guidelines for documents to be filed in registered land. The Land Court is aware of the apparent conflict between Massachusetts and California notary statutes and is available for document inquiries.
Co-chair of REBA’s Title Insurance & National
Affairs Section, Lisa Delaney owns the Braintree firm Carvin & Delaney,
LLC. Her practice centers on large commercial transactions where she handles
complex title research and provides methodically written, detailed analysis of
clear and concise facts. She can be
contacted at ldelaney@carvindelaney.com
