Posted by Karla/OR on 6/5/12 3:51am
Msg #422591
Seeking Opinions
A month ago I notarized a "Domestic Partnership Agreement" for a couple in their 80's. The paperwork was drafted by their attorney (but he did not attend the signing). The Mr. had adequate ID; but we had to have a witness for the Mrs. They were gracious and interesting people so I spent more time than usual in conversation with them about their lives before and after the signing.
Tomorrow I am notarizing more documents for the same couple - the doc's were again drafted by the attorney (Will, POA, health directive, etc.). Do you believe my previous meeting with this couple was enough for me to have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of them so that a witness would not be required at tomorrows signing? (Oregon laws requires one of the following: personal knowledge of the signer; state ID; or credible witness that knows both me and the signer).
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/5/12 4:57am
Msg #422592
What is Oregon's definition of "personal knowledge"??
FL defines "Personal Knowledge" as "“....having an acquaintance, derived from association with the individual, which establishes the individual’s identity with at least a reasonable certainty."
I had an attorney here tell me that I didn't need ID or CW's at a second signing because I'd already ID'd the signer (via CW's) 2 weeks prior - I begged to differ with her - ID is required each and every time we notarize unless we DO have personal knowledge. IMO one meeting prior to the current one does not constitute 'Personal Knowledge" - especialy when, IMO, one person did not provide valid ID.
Now, next question - why did the Mrs. not have ID last time (did she qualify for CW's?) and it's been a month since the last signing - why has she not obtained valid ID in the last month?
|
Reply by ikando on 6/5/12 7:28am
Msg #422594
Re: What is Oregon's definition of "personal knowledge"??
In my opinion, if I have ID'd someone, I have associated enough to feel comfortable that I have personal knowledge of them for the next incident. This would especially be true if it was for an unusual document or signer, as in the OP situation.
|
Reply by Lee/AR on 6/5/12 7:29am
Msg #422595
I agree with Linda n/m
|
Reply by Linda_H/FL on 6/5/12 7:31am
Msg #422596
Okay..answered my own question..and yours too
Page 23 of your manual:
"Personal Knowledge—In order to claim that a notary personally knows the signer, there should be:
A long-term relationship. You cannot use personal knowledge as identification for someone the boss introduced you to this morning.
Sufficient breadth of knowledge. You should know more about the individual than what a nodding acquaintanceship would bring.
Absolute certainty. You must have no reasonable doubt in your mind that the signer is who he or she claims to be. The test is: Would you be willing to swear to it in court?"
http://filinginoregon.com/pages/forms/notary_guide/notary_guide.pdf
|
Reply by Linda Juenger on 6/5/12 8:37am
Msg #422597
Karla, you also said that OR requires personal knowledge,
state ID or witness known to them and you. Were you able to find someone that you and the signers both know the first time? That's pretty hard to do. And, like Linda said, why is this person not getting a valid ID. I always stress that importance pretty hard if someone doesn't have a valid ID. I would require a valid ID the 2nd time.
|
Reply by OR on 6/5/12 1:44pm
Msg #422632
Re: Personly knowen--Linda you are 100% right
And if you read on it also says that the witness has to be "personally" know by the notary and the signer (that is in my words). That is why I always require ID and I don't ever use personally know to the witness.
|
Reply by MW/VA on 6/5/12 9:27am
Msg #422605
That's a touchy situation, Karla. You notarized for them before with her having an ID, and it would be assumed you would do it again. I'm wondering why the attorney didn't instruct her to get an ID card, especially considering that these are very important documents.
I probably wouldn't have a problem with it if I had been satisfied in establishing their identity before. Using "personal knowledge" is a stretch, however. Only you can make the call according to your state law.
|
Reply by ikando on 6/5/12 9:42am
Msg #422608
Marilyn, your comment about the attorney not instructing the signer to get an ID goes to one of my pet peeves. Frequently attorneys in my neck of the woods are unaware of the requirements to do a proper notarization. When I worked in an attorney's office, before I became more aware of the consequences of doing so, I was asked to notarize documents after the client had signed and left. Often I never even saw the signer, but was asked by the attorney to notarize the document, so I did.
Attorneys have so many things to keep track of, I am not surprised when they consider notary laws as inconsequential. That's one of the windmills I'm tilting at--to make the status and job of a Notary Public given more weight in the legal, medical and general public awareness.
|
Reply by Barb25 on 6/5/12 9:47am
Msg #422609
How difficult would it be for this woman to get a state ID? It is relatively easy in Florida with the right paperwork. And if she is not hospitalized, why not? She can get it on the spot. Why not tell these people your concerns. I would think that they would be happy that you want these nice and "neat" and legal.
|
Reply by sigtogo/OR on 6/5/12 10:14am
Msg #422613
We have a great SOS. when in doubt I always call. However
our notary guide is very clear on this. Your post said you used "a" witness the first time. Oregon law requires two credible witnesses known by notary.
Regarding personal knowledge for second signing, Oregon law is again clear: you must have a long-term relationship. One meeting does not constitute long-term. Would you really swear in a court of law that you know this persons identity based on one meeting and one witness?
|
Reply by kathy/ca on 6/5/12 10:19am
Msg #422615
I would not have done it last time or this time, not in CA..
A one time "chance" meeting in any state does not equate to "personal knowledge"!
|
Reply by Karla/OR on 6/5/12 11:36am
Msg #422622
Re: We have a great SOS. when in doubt I always call. However
Donna~ can you tell me on what page of the guide it specifies two witnesses vs. one? I must have missed it. Thanks much.
|
Reply by sigtogo/OR on 6/5/12 12:41pm
Msg #422625
Karla, I think its page page 24/25. take a look in index
for credible witness. You might want to save a link to the handbook on your desktop or in you internet favorites for quick access. also, keep the SOS phone number with you for those out in the filed questions. they are great! good luck!
|
Reply by Karla/OR on 6/5/12 2:43pm
Msg #422648
Re: Karla, I think its page page 24/25. take a look in index
Donna~ I print out the Guide because I like to highlight and make notes when I've had experiences pertaining to certain sections. The Guide travels with me in my notary bag in case i need to refer to it + it has the SOS number in it. Thanks for the suggestions though.
Regarding a witness, page 24 of the Guide just says "Credible Witness" (singular) and not witnesses (plural). Is there any where else that there is verbiage that clarifies one vs. two?
I have always required two witnesses. Now I'm thinking one is sufficient, unless of course the doc requires two witnesses (as in an Affidavit of Will).
Thanks Donna!
|
Reply by sigtogo/OR on 6/5/12 9:27pm
Msg #422720
Oops! Okay, backing up: ) Karla....
I should never try for quick responses while in the middle of something. I totally missed your sarcasm in asking for guide pages.
I was on my way to poa notarization, signature by mark, needing two witnesses so I am going to claim that I must have gotten my wires crossed! That’s my story and I’m sticking to it! You are right, credible witness requires one, someone with whom you have a personal relationship. I brought it up because I didn't get from your original post that your witness was a credible witness, just something about the way you worded, not that you specified. In second reading, perhaps your quoting Oregon law in last sentence was to imply your witness was known to you and the signer.
Mia culpa
|
Reply by VT_Syrup on 6/5/12 10:19am
Msg #422616
I notice Oregon's manual contains the advice "A notary should accept a statutorily valid means of identification, unless
there is a question of fraud or forgery." Other states have similar laws or advice, essentially that even if all the explicit rules are followed, don't notarize if there are suspicious circumstances. The first time someone without ID asks you to notarize, especially if the person no longer drives, that isn't suspicious. But if the person has to jump through a bunch of hoops to get the notarization done, and still makes no effort to obtain ID, that would, in my mind, create a suspicious circumstance. Of course, there might be an acceptable explanation, such as the person being bedridden, but for a person with normal mobility and no other excuse to fail to get an ID despite the lack of ID creating lots of problems is suspicious.
|
Reply by Karla/OR on 6/5/12 11:41am
Msg #422623
To those wanting to know why the Mrs. does not have ID, they tossed them when they realized they would never drive again. They are near 90, frail, and Mrs.has a cast on her arm from a recent fall. To hard for them to get to the DMV for new ID. My husband and I have the same issue with my mother-in-law.
AND, yes, because of the time i have spent with them, I do feel I would recognize her in a court of law, if ever need be.
I appreciate everyone taking the time to post an answer.
|
Reply by Barb25 on 6/5/12 1:02pm
Msg #422627
To Karla, hopefully it has been good to run
it by everyone here. And it seems you are comfortable now with your decision. And it seems that you are. That is the good thing. Because at the end of the day (the new expression  ) that is what counts. Truth be told it would only be an issue if she was who she said she was. So it should never be an issue anyhow. Nobody ever goes to court for bad "ID" (at least I don't think so.) You are a nice person.
|
Reply by Karla/OR on 6/5/12 2:14pm
Msg #422643
Re: To Karla, hopefully it has been good to run
Thanks for your response and for your kind words. Made my day.
|
Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/6/12 2:24am
Msg #422737
This is probably beating a dead horse - and you said you'd figured it out by now - but in case anyone else has any doubts, I just want to clarify about this statement:
"I do feel I would recognize her in a court of law, if ever need be."
Recognizing someone is not the same as knowing, with a satisfactory level of certainty, what their identity is. We've all probably had the experience of recognizing someone that we might come in contact with regularly, but we have no idea what their name is. (Like running into the guy from the dry cleaners at the grocery store.)
|
Reply by Susan Fischer on 6/5/12 2:19pm
Msg #422645
Short answer, no. Yours is a casual relationship, not
personal knowledge.
Be safe, get the witness, have a grand time, and carry on.
jmnsho, with chocolates.
|
Reply by Karla/OR on 6/5/12 2:34pm
Msg #422646
Re: Short answer, no. Yours is a casual relationship, not
Sharon thanks for the explanation - the difference between casual and personal is clearer to me now.
|
Reply by LMS on 6/5/12 3:24pm
Msg #422659
Re: Short answer, no. Yours is a casual relationship, not
Did you know the witness at the first appt? Or was this someone only known to the signer?
If you personally did not know the witness and by know I mean "know" not just a casual acquaintance, then you could not notarize her signature the first time. You certainly can't notarize her signature this time without a credible witness, known to both of you, or her going to DMV to get an ID card. A broken arm does not prohibit that from happening.
|
Reply by Barb25 on 6/5/12 5:02pm
Msg #422691
Why not just shoot her. Was this ever the question, no
She said she had a witness the first time. Why 3rd degree her on that. She is asking if she needs to do that again or can go the personal knowledge route. Do you have Notary Identification police in Oregon?
|
Reply by Barb25 on 6/5/12 5:07pm
Msg #422694
Re: Why not just shoot her. Was this ever the question, no
You know what, LMS. I apologize for what I just wrote it was rude and uncalled for. Sorry.
|
Reply by LMS on 6/5/12 11:45pm
Msg #422734
Re: Why not just shoot her. Was this ever the question, no
Your right it was rude. But, thank you for the apology.
The reason I asked that was because from the OP it sounded like she did not know in advance the problem with the ID and had to get a witness. In Oregon to be able to use a credible witness, the person has to be known by both the notary and the signer. It's highly unlikely the witness, if it was as I perceived to a last minute thing, was known to both, but it's possible. So, I asked.
|
Reply by Barb25 on 6/6/12 10:43am
Msg #422748
As did others before you who cited the information
in the Oregon statutes. No sense beating a dead horse or fellow notary for past mistakes. In this case, no apology necessary on my part I would think. Not rude.
|
Reply by LMS on 6/6/12 10:28pm
Msg #422813
Re: As did others before you who cited the information
It's nice to see that you've taken the new job opening for forum police. I asked a question, she did not answer it for me or anyone else. I'll make my "assumptions" as to why, but that really doesn't matter, it's her choice if she wants to answer or not. Just as it's my choice to post here, I don't need your permission, or care what you think. You can be rude all you want, anonymous people usually are, it's so easy when you hide.
Have a nice day!!!
|
