Posted by Jasmine on 7/15/06 3:05pm
Msg #133370

Emergency---need help from California experience Notary

This is my first time. I was asked to notarize a COPY of an US PASSPORT, I believe this is legal in CA for me to do so, right? Do I just sign as normal or do I need additional documents? Please help. Many thanks.

Reply by John_NorCal on 7/15/06 3:14pm
Msg #133371

NO! It is NOT legal! Read your notary handbook it is all covered there. You could probably do an affadavit of document custodian but 1. you would have to have someone else provide that, you are not allowed to provide or advise what is needed and 2. it probably would not be worth the paper it is printed on any way. So as I said, read your notary handbook.

Reply by Jasmine on 7/15/06 3:26pm
Msg #133375

Thank you, John. n/m

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/15/06 3:14pm
Msg #133372

It would appear that you are being asked to "certify" a copy of a passport which we can not do in CA.
I don't know if it will work for your client, but you might be able to use a "California copy certification by document custodian"
This would have the passport owner swear that the reproduction attached to the certificate is a true. correct and complete photocopy of the original.

If you don't have this form email me and I can send you one.

Reply by Jasmine on 7/15/06 3:16pm
Msg #133373

Thank you so much for all your answer. Dave, I will e-mail you.

Reply by Jasmine on 7/15/06 3:25pm
Msg #133374

Dave, I just e-mailed you. Thank you n/m

Reply by davidK/CA on 7/15/06 3:47pm
Msg #133380

Re: Dave, I just e-mailed you. Thank you

Exercise extreme caution here. Providing a copy certification form to someone that you will then notarize is considered UPL (the unlicensed practice of law). iIt could mean the end of your career as a Notary.

Sorry, but that's the rules.

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/15/06 4:01pm
Msg #133383

Dave and Dave - Dang it, why can't some of these

easy statements be provided for us by the SOS...at least a form that says "this is a copy of the attached." It's crazy making. I know, I know...no UPL...SOS cannot do UPL.

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/15/06 4:50pm
Msg #133385

Re: Dave and Dave - Dang it, why can't some of these

Brenda,
I agree and this is not an answer to your post but to the previous comments.

I don't believe that providing a form is UPL.
True the client needs to decide which form they want but we can describe a form and let them decide if it is what they need.
I don't see this as any different than describing a jurat and an ack. then letting them pick.

Again not a lawyer so take the advice for what it cost.

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/15/06 6:26pm
Msg #133400

Not UPL see below n/m

Reply by davidK/CA on 7/15/06 7:19pm
Msg #133405

Definition of California UPL by the SOS

This is the text from the 2006 California notary Handbook relating to UPL:

"ACTS CONSTITUTING THE PRACTICE OF LAW
California notaries are prohibited from performing any duties which may be construed as
the unlawful practice of law. Among the acts which constitute the practice of law are the
preparation, drafting, or selection or determination of the kind of any legal document, or giving
advice with relation to any legal documents or matters. If asked to perform such tasks, a
California notary public should decline and refer the requester to an attorney." (Handbook, page 8)

IMHO, the stated prohibition of the preparation, drafting, selection or determination of the kind of a legal document required seems to cover the supplying a Copy Certification by Document Custodian form to a signatory, which is intended to be notarized by the supplying Notary.

I see this problem occuring frequently in regards to a person making an application for a visa to visit another country and needing a "notarized copy" of a passport to complete the application, but at least in California you have to say "No I can't give you the necessary form." The law is silly, but it's the law in California.

Reply by steve/ca on 7/15/06 8:21pm
Msg #133413

Re: Definition of California UPL by the SOS

If "they" happen to find a copy of a form needed laying around the house we could use that.

Reply by Brad_CA on 7/15/06 9:40pm
Msg #133431

Re: Definition of California UPL by the SOS

California statute specifies that a notary public may only certify copies of powers of attorney
under Probate Code section 4307, and copies of his or her notary public journal. (Government
Code sections 8205(a)(4) and 8205(b)(1))

Certified copies of birth, fetal death, death, and marriage records may be made only by the
State Registrar, by duly appointed and acting local registrars during their term of office, and
by county recorders. (Health & Safety Code section 103545)

Reply by TitleGalCA on 7/15/06 9:55pm
Msg #133432

Blah, blah blah Steve/CA

I too, think "they" have a large responsibility. As to whether or not "they" find a copy of forms....LOL...refer to the handbook.

Thanks for the smile.

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/16/06 9:17am
Msg #133468

supplying not...

davidk says "IMHO, the stated prohibition of the preparation, drafting, selection or determination of the kind of a legal document required seems to cover the supplying a Copy Certification by Document Custodian form to a signatory, which is intended to be notarized by the supplying Notary.
I believe that supplying a form is different than preparing, drafting,selecting or determining the kind of legal document required. I
f you were at a signing and the docs did not have the correct form for your State would you hesitate to supply a compliant Ack. or Jurat?

The instructions I have seen state that the Notary may not select the form but may describe the different type of certificates and allow the client to select the appropriate one.

In fact Alfred E. Piombino's Notary Public Handbook, in discussing attested or Notary certified copies, says "To facilitate service requests, it would be advisable to have an adequate supply of request forms and certificates of attested copy or copy certification. Notaries are strongly encouraged to have the certificate of attested copy form created as a rubber stamp which would allow the application of the certification text directly upon the facsimile copy."

I am well aware that, in CA, we can not certify copies of anything other than powers of attorney or copies of our journal and I suggested the "California copy certification by document custodian as a possible solution. It would be up to the person requesting the service to decide if it was worth wile.

Reply by Gerry_VT on 7/16/06 11:23am
Msg #133475

Re: supplying not...

I suggest there is a difference between supplying an acknowledgement, jurat, or (in states where it's allowed) a copy certification by notary form, compared to supplying a copy certification by document custodian form. The difference is that just as the client is allowed to draft his or her own documents for his or her signature without a lawyer, the notary is allowed to draft his or her own documents without a lawyer. Since the acknowledgement, jurat, or copy certification by notary are all filled out and signed by the notary, the notary can draft them. It is enough for one of the parties to the transaction to ask for an acknowledgement or jurat; the notary can choose the wording. Supplying a form to be signed by the client is a different matter.

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/16/06 11:56am
Msg #133477

Agree to disagree...

Again referring to Piombino's book, which most people I have spoken with consider an excellent reference, he specifically recommends having a supply of certificates available.

Secondly, this is a standard California form available from the NNA and no I don't endorse them as any sort of authority but I do doubt that they would be selling a form that could lead to legal action.

Again. Not an attorney...bla bla bla

Reply by davidK/CA on 7/16/06 5:23pm
Msg #133500

Re: Agree to disagree...

After doing a search for Piombino's book (1995) and his other state specific books (all eastern US states) I conclude that his book simply can't be a very good reference as it applies to California laws that were enacted in 2005 or 2006. To refresh your memory, in 2005 California mandated specific new language for the Jurat and in 2006 mandated specific language for an Acknowledgement to be filed in California. I don't think you will find such information in a 1995 book, even if "most people" you have spoken to "consider [it to be] an excellent reference." It may be, but as to current California law it is out of date.

As to the NNA selling blank forms, do you seriously believe that the NNA can control the ultimate usage of blank forms, or that by the simple process of selling these forms they are therefore able to legally countermand state law? I realize that the NNA thinks they know everything, including how much money Notaries should charge, but it's a stretch to say that because the NNA has printed a Copy Certification form (that they will sell to anyone), the Notary should be providing the form in contravention of state law.

The Copy Certification is simply not in the same situation as the Notary providing and attaching a Jurat or an Acknowledgement in order to use the correct language.

Reply by Dave_CA on 7/17/06 9:07am
Msg #133585

one last time..

davidk wrote "After doing a search for Piombino's book (1995) and his other state specific books (all eastern US states) I conclude that his book simply can't be a very good reference as it applies to California laws that were enacted in 2005 or 2006. To refresh your memory, in 2005 California mandated specific new language for the Jurat and in 2006 mandated specific language for an Acknowledgment to be filed in California. I don't think you will find such information in a 1995 book, even if "most people" you have spoken to "consider [it to be] an excellent reference." It may be, but as to current California law it is out of date."

This really has nothing to do with the issue of UPL which is a more fundamental question and does not depend on which form but on the issue of the acceptability of a CA notary providing an appropriate form for a person requesting their service.

I would invite you to ask the CA SOS but I've found their answers to be only marginally better than the NNA.

Finally, thank you for the thought but my memory does not require refreshing.

Reply by BrendaTx on 7/16/06 5:35pm
Msg #133501

Re: Agree to disagree...Dave_Ca...

I think you put it rather graciously and well when you said, "Agree to disagree..."