   | Welcome to the Notary Talk General Discussion Forum. Before posting, please read the  |
| You are replying to this message: | | |
Posted by Jules/CA on 7/26/11 10:45pm
I didn't say anything about giving a notary "the right" to anything.
As a notary, when someone comes to you to get a document notarized, the notary is required to certify to the identity of the signer. If the signer doesn't have "satisfactory evidence", then wouldn't the notary give the signer the other options to establishing their (signer's) identity?
If a CW is going to be used, then the notary must establish the identity of the CW; if the identity of the CW has been established, then the notary must administer the oath(s) or affirmation(s), which includes the statement that includes "very difficult or impossible for that person (signer) to obtain another form of identification". The California Civil Code uses the same wording as the workbook "very difficult or impossible"...
I don't understand why "most notaries here" would tell Irene that she couldn't use a CW or you think that this is an incorrect practice?
The SOS or the Civil Code is not talking about whether she has an ID, it is talking about a reasonable belief that it would be very difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain ANOTHER form of identification.
Wouldn't it be like refusing to notarize a signature if the signer had a CW(s), all requirements have been met for the CW(s) and the notary told the signer he/she could not use the CW?
Jules
PS I welcome anyone who would like to comment on my post.
|
|
