Posted by HisHughness on 1/16/12 8:40am
Msg #409129

How far should a notary go...

...in ascertaining whether a witness to a signature has no vested interest in the transaction? If, for example, both signer and witness say there is no vested interest, but the notary suspects there is, and has explained the ramifications, is that sufficient? Does the notary have ANY responsibility to vet the witness other than explaining that a disinterested witness is required? What if the notary has detected no hint of a fraudulent transaction, but the signer and witness simply are acting out of convenience?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 1/16/12 8:59am
Msg #409131

Another question should be

"but the notary suspects there is, and has explained the ramifications,"

does the notary have the authority to "explain the ramifications"?

When witnesses are required I always tell people the witnesses should be neutral third parties - people who can't benefit from what's being signed and it's best if they're not related.

That's as far as I go - I certainly don't know all the Florida laws nor do I know all the federal laws that come into play, therefore I don't feel qualified to "explain the ramifications". For that they need an attorney to explain the "what ifs" of it.

MHO

Reply by HisHughness on 1/16/12 9:07am
Msg #409134

Explaining the ramifications

I don't think explaining that using a witness who has a vested interest might imperil the whole transaction crosses the line.

Reply by jnew on 1/16/12 2:00pm
Msg #409165

This brings up a question to me as to under what circumstances would a notary require "disinterested third party witnesses" with "no vested interest". Is this a signing authority function or strictly a notary requirement. My state did away with witnesses on mortgages and our statutes appear to be silent on what would disqualify a witness from signing a document. I have had documents witnessed by third parties to satisfy the customer's loan signing requirements, but the thought of what interest or benefit they might have has never occurred to me. Is this a state statute requirement in "witness states"?

Reply by HisHughness on 1/16/12 10:23pm
Msg #409225

C'mon, guys. I'd like some insights here.

Just how far should a notary go to satisfy <himself> that the witness has no vested interest in the transaction? What if, for example, he suspects, but has not a smidgen of proof, that both signer and would-be witness are actually lying?

Reply by Buddy Young on 1/16/12 11:19pm
Msg #409227

Hugh, I don't think we have to be psychologists.

I don't think we have the right to draw conclusions from what we think. If someone swears or affirms to a document, we have no right to dispute that.

I'm sure that if I felt uneasy enough I might refuse the signing and refer them to someone elce, but that's not solving the problem, it's pushing it off on someone elce.

That's an interesting question, that might get a wide variety of responses.

Reply by Buddy Young on 1/16/12 11:21pm
Msg #409228

1.) yes

2.) no