To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by Matthew Chan

Real Estate Investing
1

Posted by JohnBoy on May 18, 1999 at 13:01:20:

>>Nope. He was the court. In the equipment leasing business, attorneys tend to cost more than the scr**ing you take from the people who make you have to use 'em.

Bill,

So does this mean all that wording in the lease docs about being liable for all attorney costs and court costs is worthless?? What ever happened to an employer is still responsible for the actions of their employees??

Well I know this isn’t much consolation, but wrap up an almost empty jar of vasoline and send to him! Put a little note on the jar saying, here, you forgot something! :slight_smile:

2

To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by Matthew Chan

Posted by Matthew Chan on May 17, 1999 at 02:28:10:

In going through the various forms and contracts, there are some that have notary areas, some do not. I understand that many are not required especially those that are not going to be recorded publicly. And in a couple of cases, keep an agreement “hidden” altogether.

Although, notarizing isn’t always “required”, is it “better” to have a contract/agreeement notarized anyway? What exactly are we accomplishing by having a document notarized besides the fact that we have someone that is “officially” witnessing our signatures. I am unfamiliar with the ramifications and implications of the notarizing process.

Does it help any and make the document “stronger” (if there is such a thing) if we have to go to court?

Can someone clarify? Thanks!

3

Re: To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by Irwin

Posted by Irwin on May 17, 1999 at 06:46:07:

Recording statutes often require documents to be notarized in order to be recorded. Otherwise it’s usually not necessary.

4

Re: To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by Matthew Chan

Posted by Matthew Chan on May 17, 1999 at 11:32:56:

I know, I said that in my original post. My question isn’t what is “necessary”, does notarizing do anything more?

But I am inclined to believe there is the psychological factor where whomever we deal with will think it is “more official” by notarizing.

5

Re: To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by Bill Gatten on May 17, 1999 at 13:53:32:

Matthew,

On one occasion when I was in the Equipment Leasing business, I had someone refuse to make lease payments on equipment they had leased from me, indicating (when they found out that the their business was in trouble and they didn’t need the equipment anymore, but still had 30 payments to go) that the signature I had was not theirs.

The guy was an attorney rather (than just a ‘regular’ jerk) and I lost out big time. I was completely unable to prove that the signature was his (it appeared in fact that he had his secretary execute the lease agreement with his signature while my rep waited in another room). I had funded three 900 No. telephone systems for him with money from an elderly couple in a retirement community…the good barrister couldn’t care less. He had a loop hole and he twanged me (and them) with it. Prior to the business failure though, I was the greatest guy he had ever known, to have been so kind as to have given him such a chance in his new business venture.

You should get signatures notarized (my opinon)under the following circumstances:

  1. When it’s required by someone else

  2. When/if the signatory could ever scre* you by claiming it wasn’t their signature, and you couldn’t prove that they had constructively accepted the obligation (e.g., by living in the property, making paymentsm, taking tax write-offs, paying taxes, etc.)

  3. Or… when someone is signing an obligation to you, or someone you’d like to protect, and you’re not present (like when you send a rep out to do the job you should be doing yourself).

Bill

6

Re: To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on May 17, 1999 at 16:20:59:

I do a lot of business with equipment leasing companies. None of them have yet to require the lease docs. to be notarized with my signature. In fact, so far every one I’ve done was all handled through the mail. Never even met any of the people on the other end. They do however require a copy of my drivers license which has my signature on it and they all filed UCC-1 liens on all the equipment until the lease is paid off.

Did you at least repo the equipment from the attorney? Did he ever sign a document saying he recieved the equipment and it was all in working order before the funds were released? Didn’t you have him sign thr UCC-1 form?

He ordered the equipment, took delivery of the equipment, made some payments on the equipment, and because he claims he never actually signed the docs. he doesn’t have to pay?? Did you take it to court? If his secretary signed his name couldn’t she be held liable then? What about forgery? Sounds like he would be guilty of fraud if he had his secretary sign so he could claim he never signed anything but excepted the equipment and made some payments on it. Otherwise you would think his secretary could be held liable for fraud and forgery for signing his name if he deny’s having anything to do with it. Amazing how these guys can get away with things like that. Couldn’t an attorney get in trouble from the bar association for pulling stuff like this?

The biggest problems I’ve had so far was getting around the landlords waiver they wanted signed. My landlord won’t sign one so the leasing company has to waive that part or they kill the deal. So far they’ve all waived that form. I tell them that’s what the UCC-1 is for. The first one to file a UCC-1 is first in line with having a lien against the equipment.

Although I would agree that you should get anything important notarized.

7

Re: To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on May 17, 1999 at 15:53:54:

I agree. The old “That’s not my signature…” is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

JPiper

8

Re: To Notarize or to not notarize? - Posted by Bill Gatten

Posted by Bill Gatten on May 18, 1999 at 12:27:05:

>>They do however require a copy of my driver’s license, which has my signature on it and they all filed UCC-1 liens on all the equipment until the lease is paid off.

Yep. Yep. Know that! Been there. Done it all! But sometimes even the most brilliantest of us just do dumb stuff.

>>Did you at least repo the equipment from the attorney?

Yep. Yep. 'Problem is… a used 900 number system is worth about the same as a blue and red pay phone in Watts.

>>Did he ever sign a document saying he received the equipment and it was all in working order before the funds were released? Didn’t you have him sign thr UCC-1 form?

Yep. Yep. Yep. But it was that pesky darn missing secretary of his, whom he had fired for embezzlement and whom no body knew the whereabouts of anymore.

>>He ordered the equipment, took delivery of the equipment, made some payments on the equipment, and because he claims he never actually signed the docs. he doesn’t have to pay?? Did you take it to court?

Nope. He was the court. In the equipment leasing business, attorneys tend to cost more than the scr**ing you take from the people who make you have to use 'em.

>>If his secretary signed his name couldn’t she be held liable then? What about forgery?

Yep. Yep. Yep. She was definitely a forgerer alright. 'Problem was… he fired her months earlier… and, to make matters worse, she never existed in the first place!!

>>Sounds like he would be guilty of fraud if he had his secretary sign so he could claim he never signed anything but excepted the equipment and made some payments on it.

Right! But you know…that doggoned secretary accepted the equipment and made the payments out of his check book without his knowledge, just to usurp his good name. When he discovered her terrible misdeeds he stopped paying (simultaneously with realizing the porno phone business wasn’t what he thought it was going to be…all that heavy breathing makes you hoarse after a while).

>>Otherwise you would think his secretary could be held liable for fraud and forgery for signing his name if he deny’s having anything to do with it.

Yep. Yep. 'Could be. Could be…except for that pesky son-uv-a-gun (daughter of a gun) secretary having been lit out for the high country (probably somewhere around Mt. Kilamanajro by that time).

>>Amazing how these guys can get away with things like that. Couldn’t an attorney get in trouble from the bar association for pulling stuff like this?

Sure… but this guy was as lilly white in all of it as Edgar Winter at a Wisconsin outdoor rock festival In January. A veritable pillar of the community (though his name was Zabodznsky… so I guess he was more a Pole, than pillar, of the community).

>>The biggest problems I’ve had so far was getting around the landlords waiver they wanted signed. My landlord won’t sign one so the leasing company has to waive that part or they kill the deal. So far they’ve all waived that form.

They don’t really Landlord Waivers unless installation or removal of the equipment would damage the premises, or unless the equipment is becoming permanently affixed to the real estate.

>>I tell them that’s what the UCC-1 is for. The first one to file a UCC-1 is first in line with having a lien against the equipment.

Well…the lien priority was never a problem; however (though beside the point), a U.C.C. wouldn’t protect the landlord if you defaulted and they had to yank a 4000 ton boom crane out through your front door. And if the equipment was attached to the landlord’s premises, it becomes his… irrespective of the U.C.C. (the U.C.C. is for Personality… when Personality is attached to Realty… it’s not Personalty anymore).

>>Although I would agree that you should get anything important notarized.

Duh…? NOW you tell me.

Bill