Posted by Shan/CA on 12/22/12 3:05pm
Msg #447545

Have you no shame?

I go to do a Grant Deed for Mr. and Mrs. 23 and 25 y/o last night, you think they could have smoked the weed after I left instead of right before my arrival? Glad it took less than 2 minutes!

Reply by HisHughness on 12/22/12 4:37pm
Msg #447561

A second-hand high. This business does have its advantages.

Reply by 101livescan on 12/22/12 4:58pm
Msg #447567

It's a stressful time of year! It's quite acceptable in some circles, no mine, but others consider it pretty much normal.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 12/22/12 5:21pm
Msg #447571

Since AZ legalized Medical Marijuana, the biggest users are males ages 18-30. soundws fishy to me!

Reply by MikeC/TX on 12/22/12 6:17pm
Msg #447574

Doesn't this come under the heading of competency to sign?

Being high is not much different from being drunk - judgment is impaired. If their condition was that obvious to you, how can you take an acknowledgment from them?

A couple of years down the road when the relationship goes sour and the Grant Deed is questioned in court, all they have to say is "we were high when we did that." And then everyone turns and looks at the notary....

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/22/12 6:55pm
Msg #447578

Re: Doesn't this come under the heading of competency to sign?

In California, we aren't given "competency" guidelines because, and I've been told this by several attorneys, if we refuse to notarize because we deem somebody to be "incompetent" we could be making a legal decision we're not entitled to be making.

In CA, the rule we're given is that we need to be able to communicate directly with the signer. If, for some reason the notary can say that the person is unable to communicate, then yes... it's okay to decline to notarize on THOSE grounds, but to say they were incompetent? That's iffy...and way outside our job description.

Also, people forget that a notarization has zero impact on the legality of a document. All it does is verify the presence and signature. It doesn't guarantee that the person is legally authorized to sign a document or entire in to any agreement or anything of the sort. Those are decisions left up to the courts.

If a document isn't valid or enforceable before notarization because the signer didn't have authority, it won't be afterward, either.

Here's the thing... in CA, medical marijuana is legal, so we do tend to see it. Plenty of people can take it and hold completely rational conversations. I'm not sure HOW... but they do.

For me, it's a matter of communication. I will ask them questions about the document and a few other things. IF I find I can communicate with them, no matter their mental state or capacity, then I don't see anything within CA law that tells me I can turn them down.

Reply by MikeC/TX on 12/22/12 9:51pm
Msg #447589

Re: Doesn't this come under the heading of competency to sign?

"In CA, the rule we're given is that we need to be able to communicate directly with the signer. If, for some reason the notary can say that the person is unable to communicate, then yes... it's okay to decline to notarize on THOSE grounds, but to say they were incompetent? That's iffy...and way outside our job description."

So if the signer is obviously drunk, high, or otherwise impaired, it's OK to notarize their signature as long as you can "communicate directly" with them?

Reply by Marian_in_CA on 12/23/12 1:12am
Msg #447605

Re: Doesn't this come under the heading of competency to sign?

Well... it depends on the situation. Like I said, our handbook is pretty much silent on this and the only guidance we are given is that we need to communicate directly. But I can tell you that NOWHERE are we told that we are supposed to screen for competence or even willingness. I've looks and looked... I can't find anything. All of the literature put out by the Secretary of state says is that we are to 1) inspect the document for completeness and 2) confirm the identity of the signer. Nowhere are we told to determine competency or willingness.

One of the ways I work it is to ask them directly questions that would go in the journal... such as, "Can you tell me what you're signing today? The law requires that I record the nature of the document in my journal."

So rather than just reading the title of a document, especially in those situations where I suspect there's some issues. I wait for them to tell me about the document. SOmetimes, I'll ask them if they know why I'm there. You can get a pretty good sense of things when they answer those questions. There are other questions, too, that I will throw in, based on the situation, people present, etc. Once in a while, I've asked, "Are you feeling well? Would you prefer if I came back another time to do this?"

I have absolutely refused to notarize before for someone who was too out of it to communicate with me. He'd just come home from the hospital and he was quite confused. I came back several days later and he was perfectly lucid and we carried on a nice conversation.

Reply by Shan/CA on 12/22/12 7:40pm
Msg #447580

Re: Doesn't this come under the heading of competency to sign?

Some people will wear the horns off a billy goat!

Reply by MikeC/TX on 12/22/12 9:19pm
Msg #447588

Re: Doesn't this come under the heading of competency to sign?

"Some people will wear the horns off a billy goat!"

Possibly, but what's your point?

Reply by ananotary on 12/22/12 9:53pm
Msg #447590

That you're overreacting n/m

Reply by Shan/CA on 12/22/12 10:06pm
Msg #447592

Re: That you're overreacting

Exactly!

Reply by HisHughness on 12/23/12 12:16am
Msg #447598

Ah, Shan, spoken like a true toker. n/m

Reply by Bear900/CA on 12/24/12 3:08am
Msg #447682

..and you didn't ask them to put on some Deep Purple or Jimi Hendrix? C'mon...

Some people feel that weed opens up their minds and they can figure out the whole universe. A set of loan docs? Piece a cake.