Posted by rengel/CA on 12/13/07 11:17am
Msg #225878

It finally happend to me

My boss asked me to notarize a new client's signature on a release. The client did not have his wallet with him so no i.d. with him.

My boss wanted me to use him as a credible witness. Uh, sorry, no can do. First off, the guy having a license but not on him is not reason to use a credible witness. Second, my boss does not "personally know" the client.

AND... the release said right on it, "Page 1 of 2" - uh, boss? Where is page 2? "Oh, you don't need it, it has the places for signatures on page one."

He was so angry that he couldn't even speak! Sorry, not my problem. But I'm waiting for the fall out.

Reply by PAW on 12/13/07 11:26am
Msg #225881

Is your resume in order?

Seriously, I hope it wouldn't come to that. (And doubt that it will.) But you have justification in your actions. Your boss will just need to get over it.

Reply by rengel/CA on 12/13/07 11:45am
Msg #225885

Re: Is your resume in order?

Yes my resume is in order (always). And I have in my personal Roladex the names and numbers of many attorneys who would love to take the wrongful termination case, should it come to that. Especially against the law firm that I work for.

He will probably just make my life more miserable than normal for a couple of months until forgets about it.

BUT, the notary that he talked into notarizing for him is taking the matter to the partner she works for. We should not be put in that position.

I'll let you know if anything comes of it.

Reply by ZeeCA on 12/13/07 11:56am
Msg #225887

aww geez ... this is so stupid... if he crabs to anyone

what you refused HE can lose his license or at minimun just be brought up on charges.....

as a paralegal it is unbelievable what illegal crap some lawyers will ask you to do.....

jmo.............

Reply by Sandra Clark on 12/13/07 12:13pm
Msg #225890

Re: aww geez ... this is so stupid... if he crabs to anyone

Most people are not surprised about lawyer's behavior. Why do you think they have such horrible reputations? Nothing a lawyer does would surprise me.....

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/13/07 1:38pm
Msg #225913

Re: aww geez ... this is so stupid... if he crabs to anyone

Do you have an acknowledgment in CA in which you are notarizing the signature of the attorney who witnessed the signing by the principal?

It may not apply in this case, but we do have that practice here in PA. Since an attorney is an officer of the court, they can witness the signature and then sign a statement before a notary. The notary is then only dealing with the attorney's signature.

Reply by rengel/CA on 12/13/07 1:39pm
Msg #225914

As you said, you are not in California

We do not have that provision here.

Reply by BBuchler/CA on 12/13/07 2:00pm
Msg #225920

Re: As you said, you are not in California

Although your situation does not call for the below, I believe this is similar to Diana's comment:

PROOF OF EXECUTION BY A SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
If a person, called the principal, has signed a document, but does not personally appear
before a notary public, another individual can appear on that principal’s behalf to prove the
execution by the principal. That person is called a subscribing witness. (Civil Code section
1195) NOTE: A proof of execution by a subscribing witness cannot be used in conjunction
with any quitclaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee’s deed or a deed of
reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement (Government Code section
27287 and Civil Code section 1195(b)).

Reply by rengel/CA on 12/13/07 3:35pm
Msg #225938

You can only use a subscribing witness

if the principal (signer) cannot get to a notary. i.e. is in the hospital, homebound, etc. This is not to be used for the convenience of someone wanting to skirt around the law.

Same with using a credible witness - the principal must have a compelling reason why they do not have a government issued identification card and cannot reasonbly acquire one quickly.

This is MY opinion as I understand CA notary law. I am not an attorney and am not giving legal advise.

Reply by Terri_CA on 12/13/07 7:27pm
Msg #225969

Re: You can only use a subscribing witness

Actually, there is nothing in CA notary Law which states that it is the Notary's duty or responsibility to determine that the signer has compelling reason for not having ID. Per Paul Bresnan, head of the CA notary Division and a conversation I, personally, had with him. It's the CW who takes the oath that states that it's difficult or impossible for the signer to obtain acceptable ID, not the Notary. If the CW is willing to take the oath, then the Notary can accept it. But remember, for us to make ANY DETERMINATIONS about the signer, determinations or judgments about why they don't have ID, or about this reasons therefore, could be considered UPL.

In your original post you mentioned that you knew that your boss did not personally know the client. That is the foundation which the notary should refuse, as you know that for a fact. But to make a judgment such as "the principal must have a compelling reason why they don't have ...... ID." Nope not our call to determine if they have a compelling reason.

Again, I refer to my conversation with Mr. Bresnan. If someone has no ID, we are not to wonder why they don't, or what their reasons are for not having ID. If they can present a CW that personally knows the signer and the notary, the notary can accept the oath of the CW as acceptable id. Or since that rarely happens, then the Notary can accept the oath of two CW who personally know the signer and can present valid ID to the notary. The "onus" is on the CW as having ID'd the signer, not the notary.

Terri
Lancaster, CA

Reply by GWest on 12/13/07 2:00pm
Msg #225921

Re: aww geez ... this is so stupid... if he crabs to anyone

In California you can use Proof of Execution by a Subscribing Witness on any document, except it can not be used in conjunction with any quticlaim deed, grant deed document (other than a trustee's deed or a deed of reconveyance), mortgage, deed of trust or security agreement. (See page 12 of the 2007 Handbook).

In this case it would not apply because it states: If a person, called the principal, has signed a document, BUT CAN NOT PERSONALLY APPEAR before a notary public, another individual can appear on that principal's behalf to prove the execution by the principal. I understand that this individual was present, but did not have ID.

Reply by GWest on 12/13/07 2:10pm
Msg #225922

Re: aww geez ... this is so stupid... if he crabs to anyone

Another reason the Subscribing Witness would not work in this case is that the subscribing witness must personally know the principal. But I guess that would be the attorney's problem as he must say under oath that he personally knows the principal. If the notary knows the attorney is lying, then he can not rightfully notarize the document.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/13/07 2:57pm
Msg #225929

Re: Now that is scary

I can only imagine the abuse on this procedure.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/13/07 2:59pm
Msg #225931

Re: Now that is scary-Referring to the Attorney

witnessing a sig.

Reply by SReis on 12/13/07 3:41pm
Msg #225940

I am offended!!!

I think it is unfair to characterize all lawyers as prone to misconduct. I think the real reason people have an issue w/attorneys is the money they charge NOT the services they provide. Although it probably is the case as suggested by the facts, Rengel never even said her boss was an attorney. And yes I am an attorney so I may be a little sensitive about the subject ;-)

Reply by DianeCipa on 12/13/07 4:00pm
Msg #225945

Re: I am offended!!!

You are right, SR. The reverse can be said of attorneys saying every notary signing agent is inept. All attorneys are not dishonest and all notary signing agents are not inept.

Reply by ZeeCA on 12/13/07 4:14pm
Msg #225946

totally agree .... one bad attorney does not make all bad

and NOT referring to RENGEL's situation.

NOR did I infer that all attorneys do bad things or are bad.... I know some fantastic attorneys that are the best.

Reply by LisaWI on 12/13/07 5:52pm
Msg #225957

Re: totally agree .... hang on a second!

I didnt specifically say attorney, Diane did, what I was referring to was that someone else was witnessing the sig then went in front of a notary to make a statement. It just happened to be an attorney. I would feel the same about any profession doing this. It leaves to many doors open for unethical procedures.

Reply by ZeeCA on 12/13/07 6:06pm
Msg #225959

NO LisaWI you did not disparage anyone........ n/m

Reply by LisaWI on 12/13/07 6:31pm
Msg #225963

Re: NO LisaWI- Oh good, that wasnt the intent n/m

Reply by SReis on 12/13/07 7:25pm
Msg #225968

Sorry Lisa, it actually was in response to Sandra's comments n/m

Reply by Hugh Nations Signing Agents of Austin on 12/13/07 9:41pm
Msg #225986

Re: I am offended!!!

Lawyers practice under a 60-page set of ethical rules. There is no other profession that comes even close. If the same set of ethics was applied to the average businessman as is required of lawyers, he would transgress half a dozen times a day and not last a week before he was in front of an ethics committee.

The reasons lawyers have such a bad reputation, as one poster put it, is that everybody knows what's right and what's wrong. Each side in a lawsuit is always right; otherwise, they'd settle the damn thing with one side paying and apologizing, and the other going to the bank. So, when a person goes to a lawyer to get it all straightened out and the lawyer says, "I'll be happy to help; that'll be $5,000, please," they are infuriated at the whole system, and sitting right in front of them is the part of the system that's going to cost them $5,000 to prove what they already know -- that they're right.

Lawyers get a bum rap. Find any other profession that is bound by such stringent ethics, and I'll buy your dinner. Ministers aren't. Doctors aren't. Law enforcement officers aren't. Architects aren't. Accountants aren't. And it's for danged sure signing agents aren't.

Reply by Susan Fischer on 12/13/07 11:34pm
Msg #225992

Spot on, Hugh. But I have to wonder at the ABA's

choice(s) for Laywer of the Year...their criteria reportedly including "impact." Bestowing credence, respectability, and national laud, on a disgraced lawyer seems to fly in the face of the very ethos of the legal profession. The laws of our land are the life-blood of our democracy, the heart and soul of our moral character.

Foregoing candidates who represent the very finest in their passion for law and order also breaches that ethos. Gonzales was a lawyer who did not govern under our laws, but rather by singular political loyalty.

Rewarding disgrace makes no sense, when, as Hugh said, there are legions of very ethical lawyers practicing law all over our country, under Our Constitution, and our States' Constitutions, giving every citizen his day in court; keeping the wheels of justice turning.

The ABA should be ashamed. They're giving their own a bad rap.