Just tacking on here to give my unsolicited opinion  ...
Although most colleagues and experts fiercely disagree with me, there is no way that I would ask a signer for a thumbprint when not required. (Texans cannot, anyhow.)
I believe the requirement is useless to stop fraud and it is invasive to privacy.
I don't mind giving my thumbprint, either, but perhaps, as I read from one notary law expert, who basically said that we all know that necessity is the mother of invention. Did "the mother of invention" (250,000+ sales of ink pads @ $5.00+ each annually [$1.25 million]) turn this around and actually dictate to notaries the "necessity" (thumbprinting laws)? Interesting concept.
Why useless? First of all, who in authority will order that the thumbprint of a suspicious transaction is checked against DMV, criminal or FBI files? Is there a plan for that to be handled upon suspicion? Or must a full blown criminal case be filed? To be useful, the print would need to be checked before the documents have been signed or fairly quickly thereafter.
If the thumbprint is not a California Driver, there's not going to be a match for a genuine signer from out of state unless there is a criminal history. If a fraud isn't a CA driver, the same goes.
The premise of the thumbprint program that began in 1992 was advocated largely by a group that, consequently, also happens to sell ink pads for thumbprints. The program was based purely on the idea that a criminal would not leave his or her thumbprint.
Smart criminals know these things. They can easily get a untraceable thumbprint on a fraudulent document by engaging a party to help whose prints are not recorded with a government agency.
Stupid criminals don't think these things through. They will gladly give a thumbprint and take the property and run. They couldn't care less. By the time the fraud is discovered, the thumbprint does no good. The scoundrel has taken the property and cashed out. The thumbprint didn't stop it. A notary and his or her journal properly documented can verify after the fact that a signer appeared before a notary as well as a thumbprint can.
The only evidence I have found that says the thumbprint program works is from the "advocates" of three-year pilot program that began in 1992. The advocates claimed fraud was on the downhill because of TPing. 23 years later I can find no empirical evidence to support it. Furthermore, there were two other programs instated when the TP program went into effect. One was having the clerks in CA mail all property owners to check and see if the deeds they filed were real. THAT was highly effective and facts show it with numbers. However, the TP program has no hard numbers to offer as evidence.
This doesn't mean it is useless, it just means that after around over 23 years of thumbprinting, I can't find a case to say that a crook in a certain location was busted on a certain date and fraud was prevented because of a thumbprint. (If there is, please send it to me and I will retract this statement and tally that at least one case of fraud was solved because of a thumbprint.)
The only thing that a thumbprint does is make clear that *someone* appeared before a notary public and gave a thumbprint.
I probably won't be able to respond to arguments, although I love the debates. I may have to leave and go take care of family business but will jump back in if I can. |
