Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Since the notary is supposed to be acknowledging the signature of someone who is standing there executing the document, I can't think of any nonfraudulent reason that a notary would acknowledge a rubber-stamped signature.

I am not a notary, haven't talked to a notary, and haven't studied the law or rules on this subject, so I'm a terrible "guru" on this, but since Mr. Stone has provided an answer that I suspect may be incorrect, I though I should at least cast a little doubt on it.

First, there are two kinds of things a notary does: an "acknowledgment" and a "jurat." In the former, the notary is saying that the signatory came before him and said that he signed the document. If the document is a jurat, the notary is saying the signer came before him and swore that the things said in the document were true.

I learned from a client who used to be a notary that, contrary to popular belief, the document does not need to be signed in the presence of the notary in order for the notary to acknowledge the signature. If you read the words of the acknowledgment, and if I remember them correctly, it only says that Mr. X appeared before me, proved his identity, and stated that he signed.

Further, modern law is pretty flexible on whether someone signs by pen, pencil, rubber stamp, typewriter, pricked-finger blood, or whatever. Some kinds of documents such as wills may still, by statute, require manuscript signatures. Certainly not all.

For the foregoing reasons, I'd be inclined to think Mr. Stone may be wrong and that the answer to your question might be "yes."

On second thought I can think of situations involving big companies (mortgage or car loan originators, for example) where the volume of documents is sufficiently large that rubber-stamp signatures would be routinely used, and this would not invalidate your mortgage, if that's what you're really asking.