Posted by Linda_in_MI on 8/1/13 12:10pm
Msg #478871

Their reputation does preceed them unfortunately

Interesting that one of the two examples was a US Federal court ruling on action based on a situation in Spain. Also interesting is that in the US case the state court cites lack of "reasonable care" on the part of the notary.


http://www.nationalnotary.org/bulletin/bulletin_articles/courts_reference_nna_as_expert_in_best_practices.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BULETN&utm_campaign=A50816&utm_content=link2

Reply by C. Rivera Chicago Notary Services on 8/1/13 1:20pm
Msg #478877

yeah, but regarding the civil law notary, regardless of their definition, the judge in that situation has to FIRST consider the best interest of the child, putting everything else aside first, then evaluating later. Cases like this are very rare, and all depends on the circumstances of the case, how long was child living here in US, who was the primary caretaker mom or dad or both, who did the child live with the majority of his/her life, etc.

I'm not so sure that US district judge had proper jurisdiction in making that ruling, let alone allowed to "validate" a foreign drafted agreement (financial or otherwise)?

Reply by CH2inCA on 8/1/13 1:39pm
Msg #478880

So then...

Also referencing one of their articles, a judge could say that we're to concern ourselves with the content of a document and not necessarily the signature. The way I read this; it is incorrect. We would want the signer to acknowledge that they signed the document; why would I want them to acknowledge that they made changes? Is there a CA compliant certificate where the notary certifies that the signer made changes? :0)

"I completed a notarization for a signer, after which the signer needed to make some slight alterations to the document. The signer then asked me to perform a second notarization on the updated document. What is the correct procedure to do so?

Essentially you must complete an entirely new notarial act. The document with the changes must be returned to you and all signers must reappear before you to acknowledge that they made the changes. (They don’t have to re-sign.) The signers should initial and date each change made to the original document. In Hawaii, a Notary must additionally place the Notary’s initials in the margin of the document opposite each interlineation, erasure or change. You must also complete and attach a new notarial certificate. In states where a notary journal is required, you must also complete a new entry."

Reply by jnew on 8/1/13 4:09pm
Msg #478903

Re: So then...

This seems to be a common erroneous perception of the notary's duties. I saw an article from a Floridan newspaper, where a fraudulent will was drafted by some caretaker and the notary did not require the signers presence and they proved it because he was out of town on the day will was notarized. The article and comments online all talked about the notary being responsible for the fraud. Are we not concerned only with the identity of the document, the signer's willingness to sign a document and whether the signer understands the purpose of the document? I would hate for anyone, especially a judge speculating on whether we are directly responsible for detection of fraud. As to the example by CH2, I agree that we are there to verify whether the document was signed, if the content changes how in the world would one distinguish how and when that happened? What if it was modified by two different persons at two different times and two different locations?

Reply by Linda Spanski on 8/1/13 4:22pm
Msg #478913

What I find disturbing is this first line:

"Two recent court decisions have demonstrated a growing judicial reliance on the expertise of the National Notary Association"

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/2/13 2:31am
Msg #479021

Amen!! n/m

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 8/1/13 6:26pm
Msg #478956

Gimme a break!

<<<Two recent court decisions have demonstrated a growing judicial reliance on the expertise of the National Notary Association. In Bessenyei v. Vermillion, a Delaware state court found that a paralegal who executed jurats without requiring the personal appearance of the signer did not demonstrate “reasonable care” in performing her duties because she failed to consult with the NNA or review state law for guidance prior to performing the improper notarial act. The court noted that the paralegal was a member of the NNA at the time, and she could have called the NNA Hotline to get immediate assistance.>>>


OR HOW ABOUT LEARNING STATE LAW WHEN YOU BECOME A NOTARY!?!? Not to mention a paralegal! When did it become the standard for a notary to rely on NNA hotline advice, which, incidentally, runs hot and cold. This is realllly scary! For a notary to notarize a signature without personal appearance (how she'd get the signature?), not to mention she obviously did not properly administer an oath for the jurat, is beyond comprehension.

Actually, I wonder how far a notary would get with the SOS or a court of law, claiming the NNA told them to do or not to do something and it turned out that advice was completely wrong? LOL.

Reply by rolomia on 8/1/13 10:39pm
Msg #478996

Notarial issues aside, what happened to the child?

Has anybody followed up on this story, in detail? Is the child really better off with their father in Spain? I pray so. I know that procedural law must maintain orderly flow, contextually. However, the welfare of the child should supersede the letter of the law, if said law doesn't serve the child's best interest. Judges have tough careers. The moral ambiguities make their decision process difficult, at best. In many cases, they will be considered wrong by many observers, no matter which way they decide. I ust hope the child mentioned didn't fall into the proverbial crack between opposing sides. JMHO