Posted by Bob_Chicago on 4/8/09 12:33pm
Msg #284072

Attention all Illinois NSAs. There are some new requirements

affecting Illinois notaries that will be effective on June 1, 2009.
When we ID someone using "identification documents" , such document must
be "current and valid identification documents issued by a state of federal govenment agency and bearing the photographic image of the individual''s face and signature"
Previously, it only needed to be an "identification document"
Further there is an additional form that must be prepared and signed by all parties with thumb prints from the grantors, when a deed of conveyance is executed conveying real estate located in Cook County (county where Chicago a most of its major suburbs is located ). Fortunately , the deeds that we normally see at a re-fi signing, namely , from one spouse to the other to add or correct names to the title are exempt from the requirement. If an IL NP notarizes a non-exempt deed, then there are certain filing requirements with the title company or with the Cook County recorder of deeds.
I am in contact with some of the TCs that I work with on a regular basis to discuss suggested proceedures to deal with this new legislation.

Suggest that you check out Senate Bill 546

A certain national organiztion of notaries, which shall remain nameless , to protect me
from board abuse, had sent a e-mail to its members , which has, IMO, an excellent
analysis of the new laws.
You are welcome to PM me if you wish to discuss this matter further.

Reply by Linda Juenger on 4/8/09 1:23pm
Msg #284078

On top of it Bob. Thanks. I am glad to see this change in ID law. I think it was needed and agree with it. It's not impossible, but highly unlikely that I will get a Cook County property down here in Southern IL. to worry much about that part, although I do carry a fingerprinting kit. I am not concerned about the Case Law either. I am not an employee and don't hire employees.

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 4/8/09 1:50pm
Msg #284085

"I am not concerned about the Case Law either."

Not sure if I agree with you on this one , Linda.
I asume that you are referring to Vancura v. Katris, 98-CH 6225.
I have not had a chance to read the entire decision yet, but there seems
to be some disturbing language .
I believe that the Court stated that a NP might be negligent if they they do not
go beyond the requirements of the Illinois Notary Act, and fail to follow the
requirements of the Model Notary Act and The Notary Public Code of Professional
Responsility, neither of which have been adopted by the State of Illinois.
As a responsible NP and NSA, I require more than "identification documents"
to ID a signer, but would not like to be held liable for failing to follow legal
requirements that have not been adoped by the Legislature, as being applicable
to Illinois NPs

Reply by trnsa_IL on 4/8/09 5:43pm
Msg #284137

Bob, I just finished reading this case opinoin, and NO the

court did not ultimately state that a "NP might be negligent if they they do not
go beyond the requirements of the Illinois Notary Act, and fail to follow the
requirements of the Model Notary Act." The trial court made this statement, but it was overturned on appeal. In fact, it stated quite the opposite. Mr. Vancura relied on the expert testimony of a Professor Closen, who has received much ado from the NNA, as well as the Model Notary Act, which I understand he helped to draft along with the NNA. This is the courts' response.

(I found this opinoin both interesting and educational, and I feel it certainly is relevant to us as notaries. It not only states that the MNA is not the law, and that is has never been "formally" incorporated into Illinois law, but that it has been "formally" rejected by the legislation on at least two seperate occasions. Very interesting.)

"The majority opinion contains an extensive discussion about the Model Notary Public Act,
claiming that it is appropriate to look to the Model Act, in this case, to define terms (here, what
does “satisfactory evidence” of identification mean under the statute). The Model Act mandates that more than one identification be provided, one of them with a photo, and Professor Closen expressed his view that more than one form of identification is necessary. On the other hand, that is not what the Illinois Notary Public Act or the Illinois handbook advises. The majority discussion leaves the impression that, among other duties, the Model Act requires that two or more pieces of identification are necessary and, impliedly, that Kinko’s trainer was negligent in training Albear to get one photo identification and nothing more unless the latter was suspicious.

However, the Model Act is not the law; it is little more than a series of suggestions that
some people would like the law to be. The majority comment that it has never been “formally
incorporated into Illinois law.” This appears to me to be something of an overstatement. In fact, the legislature has “formally” rejected the Model Act on at least two occasions, with good reason, in my view. For example, the Model Act calls not only for a logbook to be kept but 12 to 13 items of information including a thumb print or retinal scan. This seems to me to be an exaggerated and overreaching requirement. In any event, neither the trial court nor the majority can look to the Model Act to define the duties of a notary. These come only from the Illinois Notary Public Actand Kinko’s’ own undertaking."

(Page 54 of Vancura vs katris, 98-CH6225)

www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/AppellateCourt/2008/1stDistrict/December/1062750.pdf - Similar pages

Bob, thanks for this reference in your post.

Tonya

Reply by trnsa_IL on 4/13/09 1:03pm
Msg #284717

I am checking into this more as I may be wrong, Sorry I'll

post more when I have more concrete evidence one way or the other. I am not an attorney and should not rely on my own understanding of case law!

Head bowed in shame but determined to find the right answer!

Tonya

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/8/09 1:58pm
Msg #284087

Can't let you off that easy, Bob. See Msg. #281606

In Msg. #281606 our own dear DickB/WI brought up this for discussion.

We don't need no stinkin' "certain national organiztion of notaries" we gotz our own DickB.

Excuse me...something's coming that I need to deal with.
http://forumspile.com/B33r-Doggie.jpg

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 4/8/09 2:13pm
Msg #284092

As I said in the 281606 thread, I had not yet read the Bill.

Hey, not effective until June. I'm seven weeks early.
Requirements are NOT applicable to most interspousal transfers,
so it should not be too big an issue for NSAs.
Law does NOT effect non-IL NPs.
BTW, it is only applicable to residential property of 4 or fewer units.
Good info is still good, even for those who do not like the source of the info.

Reply by BrendaTx on 4/8/09 2:32pm
Msg #284097

Re: As I said in the 281606 thread, I had not yet read the Bill.

*Good info is still good, even for those who do not like the source of the info.*

No. I say throw the baby out with the bathwater.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/84/Baby-with-the-Bathwater.jpg
(Sorry. Cannot help myself.)

Reply by Cari on 4/8/09 3:10pm
Msg #284115

it will be interesting to see how the Cook County Recorder of Deeds is going to handle all the 'new' forms....and anxious to see who is going to furnish the newly required notary form....perhaps NNA? Who knows....I've done my own just in case.

Reply by Cari on 4/8/09 3:39pm
Msg #284121

Vancura v Katris....in reading the abstract

it reminds me of certain TC's in Chicago, which shall remain nameless, that employs notaries instead of hiring independent NSA's to perform closings in which the TC's have an interest...I have always thought that this practice was 'shady', and am glad to see that perhaps the above case law may be the opening door to a much needed notary law reform for our state...

I would love for one of these notaries (that work full-time as an employee for the larger Chicago TC's) to post here, pm or call me to give us the true dish on what exactly goes on in those big wig TC's....wishful thinking perhaps...but I can keep a secret....he he

Reply by sue_pa on 4/8/09 6:26pm
Msg #284144

Re: Vancura v Katris....in reading the abstract

I don't get what you're saying. Sounds to me like you think a settlement agent can't have employees notarize and you think independents should be brought in for every closing. If that's what you're implying, I don't get it. If that's what you think and you think it's "shady", I wonder what rock you've been hiding under for the past century minus the past decade.

Reply by Cari on 4/8/09 6:28pm
Msg #284147

Have you read the abstract sue_pa? n/m

Reply by sue_pa on 4/8/09 6:38pm
Msg #284152

Re: Have you read the abstract sue_pa?

I have no idea what you're talking about "the abstract". I'm commenting on your comment that I interpret to be that you think settlement agents/title companies/attorneys shouldn't have their own staff notarize loan documents. Perhaps I am wrong but it looks like another poster took it the same way also.

Reply by Pat/IL on 4/8/09 6:32pm
Msg #284150

Do I understand you correctly?

"it reminds me of certain TC's in Chicago, which shall remain nameless, that employs notaries instead of hiring independent NSA's to perform closings in which the TC's have an interest...I have always thought that this practice was 'shady'..."

You seem to be inferring that, because a Kinko's employee was not competent to properly identify a person, therefore it follows that notaries employed by title companies commit shady acts. If that is the case, well, I just can't find the logical connection there.

First of all, title companies having closing officers (who are notaries) on staff is the norm, and it has been for a long, long time. It is not the exception. The contract notary is a relatively new phenomenon.

The foremost duty of a title company is to protect the interests of its insured. That duty is not served by failing to train the staff or, worse, permitting illegal acts by closing officers. That is not to say that no employee of a title company has ever assisted in fraud - on the contrary, I could google you up some cases pretty quickly. That does not mean it is a wide-spread practice. I could also google up some cases where contract notaries have been involved in fraud.

If I am misunderstanding your remarks, or if you know something about shady practices within title companies that support your opinion, please do tell. I would be interested to hear about it.

Reply by trnsa_IL on 4/8/09 7:05pm
Msg #284154

Cari, what is the abstract you're referring to? I have read

the opinoin for Vancura vs Katris, but I do not know what you mean by "abstract."

Tonya