Posted by Linda_in_MI on 1/31/11 5:41pm
Msg #370751

ASN memo on enotarization and presence requirement

The American Society of Notaries is basically saying what everyone else has already said. Quoting from the memo (with the second sentence bolded for emphasis):

"American Society of Notaries believes that no state has authorized the performance of electronic
notarizations without the personal/physical presence of the signer before the notary. The
traditional fundamentals of the notarial act, including personal/physical presence of the signer,
are required whether the transaction is electronic or on paper."

http://www.asnnotary.org/img/Enot%20PresReq%20Jan2011.pdf

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/31/11 5:45pm
Msg #370752

Aahh...but be aware - VA is close to passing it

(see post earlier today with link to hearings) - Msg #370676

Was very interesting...

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 1/31/11 5:48pm
Msg #370753

OK, so can someone give a recap of what happened?

I didn't get to watch it

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/31/11 5:52pm
Msg #370756

Re: OK, so can someone give a recap of what happened?

One representative presented it...one representative opposed it citing the foreclosure mess and improper notarization is partially what led to it....another rep opposed it, reading current presence requirements for notarizations....sent to vote for third hearing...passed for third hearing...

If the opponents don't come to the next one better prepared you can bet your bottom dollar it's going to pass. It will take effect 7/1/2012 and, if I heard correctly, one requirement will be that the notary personally knows the signer.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 1/31/11 5:57pm
Msg #370757

Re: OK, so can someone give a recap of what happened?

Great... what will happen is, everyone will claim they "personally knew" the signer. Absolutely no accountability...

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/31/11 6:00pm
Msg #370759

The voices in opposition were pretty weak and pathetic IMO n/m

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/31/11 6:06pm
Msg #370760

Re: The voices in opposition were pretty weak and pathetic IMO

I know it's that last thing many of us want... but the NNA should be made aware of this. Part of what they are supposed to do is fight against stuff like this. I'm really surprised it hasn't really been noticed over there yet. This seems like the kind of thing they'd pounce on.

Maybe, Mike Robinson needs somebody to alert him directly:

http://www.nationalnotary.org/government/index.html

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 1/31/11 6:07pm
Msg #370761

I contacted the NNA and never heard anything back n/m

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/31/11 6:47pm
Msg #370767

Re: I contacted the NNA and never heard anything back

NNA knows about it - they have sent me some emails strongly encouraging me to contact my legislators and urge them to vote no. I would not have even known about it if the NNA had not sent me the emails.

I did write a lengthy email detailing my strong opposition to the bill. I sent it to my representatives and also to the sponsors of the bills in both the VA Senate and VA House of Delegates. Both of my representatives thanked me for my email. The sponsors of the bill did not respond to me.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/31/11 6:49pm
Msg #370769

Good for you, Copper! I hope that

other VA notaries are getting with them and not just hitting that button to vote yes or no in the survey.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/31/11 6:48pm
Msg #370768

Not an NNA member, but like I told Robert...

if they will step out and set these things straight I will be humbled I will buy a membership and tell anyone that wants to know why.

Reply by CopperheadVA on 1/31/11 6:52pm
Msg #370770

Re: Not an NNA member, but like I told Robert...

I have not been a member of the NNA for 4 years, but they still have my email address and sent it to me. I have to say that I'm glad they did!

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/31/11 6:46pm
Msg #370766

It will take some education to get notaries up to

snuff on what "personal knowledge" is.

Personal knowledge is like your co-workers, boss, neighbors and so forth...people you have a relationship with and won't need to see their ID to know who they are. But, we'll have to see what unfolds.

If I was a Va. notary I would be calling my elected officials.

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 1/31/11 9:37pm
Msg #370784

I'd not only be calling, but I'd probably

also be hounding them a bit... maybe even paying a personal visit to their offices. The lack of opposition to this means that people., in general, just don't "get" notarization.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/1/11 5:47am
Msg #370810

The Bill defines "personally knows" (starts line 67)

"Personal knowledge of identity" or "personally knows" means familiarity with an individual
resulting from interactions with that individual over a period of time sufficient to dispel any reasonable uncertainty that the individual has the identity claimed.

Reply by BobbiCT on 2/1/11 7:07am
Msg #370816

Weasel Language ..

This puts the FULL BURDEN on each individual notary for each individual circumstance to define and determine "familiarity, " "interactions," and "period of time sufficient to dispel any reasonable uncertainty."

This language intentionally allows for the person requesting the notarization to PRESSURE the notary into performing a "hmm ... maybe" notarization; i.e., there is no black-and-white law that states what is "reasonable" and what is "time sufficient." Reasonable to one person may be unreasonable to another: resulting in a Court case and a lawsuit to create the first standard. Obviously this is one bill crafted and created for the benefit of the SELLERS of the equipment and software and BIG national and international business with no thought of the liability of the notary, who for a nominal fee takes on all the liability as a public official.

I am not afraid of technology. I am not comfortable with POSITIVELY identifying someone via a computer screen and using the location of the notary rather than the location of the signer as the venue. On the other hand, title company Virginia notaries will be able to expedite California loan document signings ... since the California borrower does not have to appear before the Viriginia notary, although the venue for the notarization will be Virginia.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/1/11 7:40am
Msg #370821

Re: Weasel Language ... I totally agree

And I also think THIS is the specific portion of this Bill where we might buy a clue as to whose idea it might've been?

The problem as I see it is that VA & it's 48 companions would need to prohibit "personally known" across the board, as CA did. Perhaps this is a day late and a dollar short, but somewhere in CA's retraction of allowing "personally known" there must've been a good arguement. Who made it, and what was it?

I notice that the attempt to ammend the VA Bill to circumvent issues similar to what's been experienced with regard to foreclosures was denied as being "not germane".

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/1/11 12:21pm
Msg #370860

Bobbi (et al)... just occured to me

Do you think perhaps VA has just lined itself up to be a new Mecca for lending institutions?

My biggest interest in this Bill has really been trying to find the MOTIVATING FACTOR. Surely there is money at the end of that.

On the surface, barring the "personally known" issues which do have precedent (thanks so much, CA), I think this Bill is not such an ugly monster as most others think. Yes, I know, I'm pretty much alone in that ...but nonetheless.

I'd like to know what's buried below the surface, though.

Reply by BobbiCT on 2/1/11 3:02pm
Msg #370879

What's "reasonable"

A mecca for the innovative, creative title company with a salaried employee who is also a notary. Time to test the limits of "reasonable."

Loan documents are signed anywhere in the U.S.and the Virginia title company employee notarizes those requiring notarization. No need for the borrower to leave home or for an independent notary to go to the borrower's home.

Lucky in CT: One of the few states that requires two witnesses on a mortgage deed, even if notarized in Virginia, borrowers will still need two witnesses if signing in CT. Of course, the borrowers can "fudge" that because witness requirement can be met "off camera"; i.e., the notary does not have to be present at the same time a mortgage deed, which requires an "acknowledgment," is signed (only the witnesses must be present at signing).

Reply by BobbiCT on 2/1/11 3:05pm
Msg #370880

This scenario is perfect for ....

Lenders that are already set up for 100% e-sign documents - no initial investment in new equipment or software, just find ONE VA title company set up for this and send 100% of its e-signs through that company. Of course, reduced fee for "volume" discount.

Reply by anotaryinva on 2/1/11 8:11am
Msg #370822

Personally known

Linda, you heard correctly. That is what Rep Bryon 'said', that the person had to be personally known. When I read the bill though it looks like there is more to it. I don't see this on today's schedule but I'm still looking.

� 47.1-15. Prohibitions.

A notary shall not:

1. Notarize a document if the signer is not in the presence of the notary at the time of notarization, unless (i) in the case of an electronic notarization, satisfactory evidence of the identity of the signer is established in accordance with � 47.1-2 or (ii) otherwise authorized by law to do so.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/1/11 8:36am
Msg #370824

They had an amendment or two just prior to

voting - was that one of the amendments?

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/1/11 8:41am
Msg #370825

No, that wasn't it ...

The only Ammendment accepted was this:

2. That the provisions of this act relating to the use of video and audio conference technology shall become effective July 1, 2012.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/1/11 8:43am
Msg #370826

When it was originally proposed..or rather should say

when WE first heard it here - there was no provision that the notary had to personally know the signer - that came in later..

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/1/11 8:50am
Msg #370827

Um ...you sure?

I didn't find that ammended, and both the proposed and accepted ammendments are on record.

The Bill doesn't exactly require that the e-notary personally know the signer, but allows for that as one of the options for identifying the signer.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/1/11 9:01am
Msg #370828

Re: Um ...you sure?...no I'm not

I just don't recall seeing the personal knowledge aspect from the initial reading -

Reply by anotaryinva on 2/1/11 9:22am
Msg #370830

Re: Um ...you sure?...no I'm not

I'm not sure about any of this, it is so difficult to understand.

I never saw in any of the bills that 'personally known' was a requirement. When the patron of the bill Rep. Byron mentioned it during yesterday's hearing I was surprised.


I'm trying to find a copy of the video from yesterday's session.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/1/11 5:40am
Msg #370808

VA HB 2318 - Final version

I didn't get to watch this yesterday, but the "engrossed" Bill (which means the final version) has been posted here:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?111+sum+HB2318

The Bill's definition of "Satisfactory evidence of identity" (starts at line 74, I removed the line numbers for easier reading here):

74 "Satisfactory evidence of identity" means identification of an individual based on (i) examination of one or more of the following documents bearing a photographic image of the individual's face and signature: a United States Passport, a certificate of United States citizenship, a certificate of naturalization, an unexpired foreign passport, an alien registration card with photograph, a state issued driver's license or a state issued identification card or a United States military card or (ii) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness unaffected by the document or transaction who is personally known to the notary and who personally knows the individual or of two credible witnesses unaffected by the document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary documentary identification as described in subdivision clause (i). In the case of an electronic notarization, "satisfactory evidence of identity" may be based on video and audio conference technology, in accordance with the standards for electronic video and audio communications set out in subdivisions B 1, B 2, and B 3 of § 19.2-3.1, that permits the notary to communicate with and identify the principal at the time of the notarial act, provided that such identification is confirmed by (a) personal knowledge, (b) an antecedent in-person identity proofing process in accordance with the specifications of the Federal Bridge Certification Authority, or (c) a valid digital certificate accessed by biometric data or by use of an interoperable Personal Identity Verification card that is designed, issued, and managed in accordance with the specifications published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 201-1, "Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors," and supplements thereto or revisions thereof.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 2/1/11 5:44am
Msg #370809

Venue is also addressed ...

I remember that being a question - but the Bill makes it clear that the venue of ANY e-notarization performed under this Act (which can only be done by a VA commissioned notary) is the Commonwealth of VA.

Reply by Stoli on 1/31/11 6:58pm
Msg #370772

This takes us back to the 'old days' when notaries said

they personally knew the signer. California's newly revised acknowledgment eliminated the option for the notary to indicate that we personally knew the signer and added the Penalty of Perjury statement as well.

Reply by BrendaTx on 1/31/11 7:02pm
Msg #370773

I received this and thought it was great.

The more information that can be provided to notaries 'on the ground' the less trouble notaries will be in.

Reply by MW/VA on 1/31/11 8:06pm
Msg #370779

Ironic that I was just thinking I hadn't heard from them on

all the buzz about this new style of e-notarization. I sent emails to the delegates in my state today, which is supposed to vote on the proposed Bill tomorrow. I said about the same thing as ASN, is that it essentially removes the function of a notary & opens the door wide open to fraud at every level, IMO.

Reply by Stamper_WI on 2/1/11 5:51am
Msg #370811

WIll other states continue to accept VA notarization? n/m

Reply by anotaryinva on 2/1/11 6:39am
Msg #370813

Re: WIll other states continue to accept VA notarization?

I hope not, if it does pass maybe that will
Be the only way to get it repealed. The one
Thing that bothered me most during yesterdays hearing
Was the way the patron Kathy Byron said
That those opposed are just afraid of technology like
Everyone was afraid of ATMs. Sorry for typos and strange capitals typing on itouch

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 2/1/11 7:06am
Msg #370815

Re: WIll other states continue to accept VA notarization?

I think it the notarization is legal in VA then other states will have to accept it - unless states enact a provision that webcam appearance must be acceptable in both states in order for the notarization to be acceptable in the signer's state.

"those opposed are just afraid of technology like
Everyone was afraid of ATMs"

Yeah..that statement surprised me too - but I was more surprised at the lame opposition...too bad the representatives couldn't have put a little more effort into their research and arguments.

Reply by MW/VA on 2/1/11 1:56pm
Msg #370870

I think we need to remember that it's separate issues.

It is still a separate & distinct entity to become e-notarization authorized in VA. Our standard notary laws still remain, at least for the time being. This has obviousy been coming. I remember being contacted a year or so ago about attending a seminar for "bio-identification". We're not going to stop progress, and that's not the intent. IMO I just don't think they've thought the logistics of this one through.

Reply by jba/fl on 2/1/11 2:04pm
Msg #370872

"bio-identification"

I have to chuckle at this, and it sounds strange. On the surface bio-idsare great. Problem: Everyone uses different software and stores their info differently. Just thinking of FL: the State uses one system, counties all have their own differences, then there are the cities and their vast differences. Add in school boards, courts, licensing bureaus - and few of them interface successfully. Who will house this info and make it compatible for quick reference/identification?


Disclaimer: I don't know much about this, but enough to know I may be wrong on a few points. I'm not the least insulted to be corrected and really do wish to learn more about this.