A Notary's Authority is Limited.

There is a practice among some Notary Signing Agents that deserves a closer look: administering one broad or “blanket” oath at the beginning of every mortgage signing.

The reasoning often seems simple enough. There may be several documents in the package requiring jurats, so why not swear the borrowers in once at the beginning and consider the oath requirement satisfied for everything that follows?

The problem is that a mortgage package is not one notarial act.

It may contain numerous documents requiring no notarization at all, several requiring acknowledgments, and perhaps a few requiring jurats or other sworn notarial acts. Each certificate represents a particular notarial act with particular requirements.

## An Acknowledgment Is Not a Jurat

This distinction matters.

With an **acknowledgment**, the signer acknowledges executing the document for its stated purpose. The signer is not being asked by the notary to swear that everything contained in the document is true.

A **jurat** is fundamentally different. The oath or affirmation is an essential component of the notarial act. The signer is swearing or affirming to the truthfulness or accuracy of the statements contained in that document.

Those are two different acts, and they should not be casually blended together simply because both types of documents happen to appear in the same loan package.

## What Authority Does the Notary Have to Swear Someone to the Entire Package?

Notaries are authorized to administer oaths. That isn't the question.

The better question is:

**What gives a notary the authority to independently decide that a borrower should swear to the truthfulness of an entire mortgage package?**

Suppose a package contains three documents requiring jurats, six requiring acknowledgments, and another 100 pages requiring no notarization whatsoever.

The notary clearly has a reason to administer an oath or affirmation for the three jurats. Those documents call for sworn statements.

But why should the borrower be asked to swear to the remaining documents?

The lender did not necessarily require those documents to be sworn. The title company did not turn them into affidavits. The certificates do not call for jurats. In many instances, there isn't even a notarial act associated with them.

The fact that a person happens to have authority to administer an oath does not necessarily mean that person should invent an oath where none is required.

## There Is Another Problem: The Signer May Not Have Read the Documents Yet

Consider what happens when the oath is administered at the very beginning of the appointment.

The borrower may not have seen most of the documents.

Yet the notary may essentially be asking:

**Do you swear or affirm that everything you are about to sign is true and correct?**

How can someone meaningfully swear to the truthfulness of statements they have not yet read?

There may also be documents containing representations from the lender, title company, settlement agent, appraiser, insurer, or other parties. A mortgage package can contain disclosures, contractual provisions, calculations, notices, acknowledgments of receipt, and many other types of information.

Not everything in that stack is necessarily a factual statement by the borrower that the borrower should be asked to swear is true.

## Are We Overstepping Our Role?

This is where I believe notaries should be particularly careful.

Our authority to administer an oath does not give us unlimited authority to determine **what someone should be required to swear to**.

When a document requires a jurat, the path is clear. The notary administers the required oath or affirmation and completes the appropriate certificate.

When a document requires an acknowledgment, the notary performs an acknowledgment.

When a document requires no notarization, the notary generally has no independent reason to transform it into something resembling a sworn statement.

That is why I would hesitate to label the blanket-oath practice “unauthorized practice of law” without specific legal authority saying that it is. UPL is a serious legal allegation.

However, I do believe there is a legitimate question about whether a notary who independently decides to place the entire transaction under oath is **going beyond the proper scope of the notarial function**.

The notary's job is to perform the notarial acts required—not to create additional legal significance for documents because it seems more convenient.

## One Appointment Does Not Mean One Notarial Act

Perhaps this is the simplest way to look at it.

A mortgage closing may be **one appointment**, but it can contain **many separate notarial acts**.

If there are four acknowledgments and three jurats, there aren't simply “seven notarizations.” There are four acknowledgments and three sworn notarial acts, each with its own requirements.

Convenience should not erase those distinctions.

Administering an oath when the jurat requiring it is reached keeps the oath connected to the document and the notarial act for which it is required. It also gives the signer an opportunity to review the document before being asked to swear or affirm that its statements are true.

That may take a few extra seconds.

But precision is part of the job.

**A notary has the authority to administer an oath. That should never be confused with having the authority to decide, without a legal or documentary basis, that an entire mortgage transaction ought to be placed under oath.**