Posted by Karla/OR on 8/11/13 6:02pm
Msg #480110

"New Notary Public Program" (Oregon)

Las Thursday I received an e-mail from the State of Oregon people providing the "Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts" which takes effect September 3, 2013. (http://www.filinginoregon.com/pages/notary_news/notary-law-changes.html)

I have not read through all the pages yet, but one bit of info did catch my eye:

On page 3, Section 6. Identification of individual.
(2) A notarial officer has satisfactory evidence of the identity of an individual appearing before the officer if the officer can identify the individual:
(a) By means of:
(A) A United States passport or an officially recognized passport of a foreign country or a driver license or identification card issued under ORS 807.400 or a comparable provision in another state, (and this is where it gets interesting, to put it lightly!!) "that is current or that expired not more than three years before performance of the notarial act; . . .

I have read it over and over to make sure I am understanding it correctly. It appears that we will be able to accept EXPIRED passports and DL's (those that expired within the past three years).

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/11/13 6:23pm
Msg #480115

The version of the law that includes the comments of the drafting committee is at

http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/notarial_acts/rulona_final_10.pdf

The comment about using ID that expired up to three years ago reads:

"Although the notarial officer might usually expect the identification credential to be currently in force, this provision recognizes that even though an expired credential would not be effective for its primary purpose (e.g. as a license permitting the individual to drive an automobile), it may used for a period of up to [three years] after its expiration as a means for identifying an individual. As long as it provides the necessary information for identifying the individual, its identification function is satisfied. This subsection does, however, put a specific outside limit of [three years] beyond the expiration of the credential for its use for identification purposes."

(Material in square brackets is stuff the drafting committee recognized some states might want to change, but apparently, Oregon didn't change it)

The comment also addresses an issue that comes up frequently in this forum, the "more not less rule" myth. That comment reads:

"Identification of an individual based on an identification credential requires some flexibility. For example, it is not uncommon that an individual’s name as used in a record may be a full name, including a full middle name; however, the name of the individual as provided on the identification credential may only use a middle initial or none at all. The inconsistency may be vice versa instead. The notarial officer should recognize these common inconsistencies when performing the identification of an individual. However, if a notarial officer is ultimately uncertain about the identity of the individual, the notarial officer should refuse to perform the notarial act (see Section 8.)"

So the official comments to the Uniform Law bust the "more not less" myth, at least in states that pass RULNOA and don't change it to add "more not less" language.

Reply by Karla/OR on 8/11/13 7:03pm
Msg #480118

Gerard, thanks for responding and for the information you directed me to. It does reflect the same verbiage that the new laws do in that the ID can be expired as long as it has not been over three years.

I also went back to read from the "State of Oregon Notary Public Guide" (unfortunately it is not dated) that has been my go-to book since becoming a notary. On page 24 it clearly says, "Identification Documents-the following types of identification may be used to positively identify a client, if they are current (the word "current" is bolded), i.e., not expired:

A current driver's license or current identity card issued by any state

A current United States passport or a current officially recognized passport of a foreign country."

And it goes on to provide other forms of ID that can be used.

So how would one know which is accurate when one says current and the other indicates the ID can be expired for three years and still useable??????

Frustrating!!!

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/11/13 7:15pm
Msg #480121

"So how would one know which is accurate when one says current and the other indicates the ID can be expired for three years and still useable??????"

As of right now, the old law is in effect - so the ID must be "current - not expired".. The "expired less than 3 years" criteria cannot be used until the effective date of the new law - September 3, 2013.

Reply by Karla/OR on 8/11/13 7:25pm
Msg #480125

Hi Linda~ Gerard's link referred me to what I copied below - it is dated "2010" - it states the expired ID is valid and parallels the new laws in September:

REVISED UNIFORM LAW ON NOTARIAL ACTS
Drafted by the
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
and by it
APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES
at its
ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-NINETEENTH YEAR IN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
JULY 9-16, 2010
WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS
COPYRIGHT 8 2010
By
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
November 15, 2010

So my point is that the current "State of Oregon Notary Public Guide" says "current" only and does not address the expired ID info. Therefore a contradiction an confusing.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/11/13 7:29pm
Msg #480126

The Oregon Notary Public Guide that I have

is dated February 2011 - it says current ID, unexpired.

Publication No. 1500

Date is at the end of the document

http://filinginoregon.com/forms/pdf/notary/1500.pdf

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 8/11/13 7:30pm
Msg #480127

Sorry...page 22 in the handbook for ID requirements. n/m

Reply by Karla/OR on 8/11/13 7:35pm
Msg #480128

Re: The Oregon Notary Public Guide that I have

Never thought to look at the back of a mine for a date - mine shows January 2012. And like yours, it says "current" only.

Thanks Linda.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/11/13 7:37pm
Msg #480129

It might help to look at this web site, which is the main site where the PDF I mentioned earlier in the thread is hosted:

http://www.uniformlaws.org/

The Uniform Law Commission drafts SUGGESTED legislation that states may decide to adopt. Some suggested uniform laws have been adopted by nearly all the states, others were adopted by only a few. In the case of the RULNOA, you can look at a page that shows where it has been enacted:

http://www.uniformlaws.org/Act.aspx?title=Law%20on%20Notarial%20Acts,%20Revised

It shows that it has only been enacted in IA, ND, and OR. It has been introduced in PA but hasn't passed yet. So that's why it was suggested in 2010 but hasn't gone into effect yet in OR. Than leaves 46 states where it is not a law, and hasn't even been introduced for consideration in the legislature.

Reply by Karla/OR on 8/11/13 7:49pm
Msg #480130

Thank you, thank you! Even clearer now! (O: n/m

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/11/13 8:27pm
Msg #480140

Susan posted about this 8/9 Msg #479769

I like the section that allows a person to sign "for them".

Reply by LKT/CA on 8/11/13 10:07pm
Msg #480146

With increased fraud, the LAST thing governing sources

should do is take steps backwards! CA has definitely taken steps backwards in approving commissions for convicted felons. I also wasn't too happy when they added state/city employee badges as acceptable ID. There's no guidebook to verify the authenticity of state/city employee badges. Someone from northern CA using that as ID in southern CA - how would I know their purple and pink polka dot badge is *supposed to be* purple with pink polka dots? Wonder who's bright idea THAT was !?!?!

And now, Oregon is changing their law - stepping backwards - and approving an ID expired up to 3 years ago as acceptable when today only current ID is acceptable. Unreal!!!!

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 8/11/13 10:38pm
Msg #480149

See this link to compare old rules with new rules

new rules go into effect 9/3. doesn't matter what is in a old guide after 9/3. SOS is in the process of creating a new guide

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 8/11/13 10:39pm
Msg #480150

opps-here you go!

http://www.filinginoregon.com/pages/forms/notary/2013-notary-updates.pdf

Reply by Karla/OR on 8/12/13 2:16am
Msg #480154

Thanks Donna! n/m

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 8/11/13 10:48pm
Msg #480151

SIGNATURE BY PROXY replaces signature by mark

"Allows a disabled (permanent or temporary) signer to have a proxy (or 3rd party) sign on their behalf in the notaryˇ¦s presence. (Section 8 Ch 219 Oregon Laws 2013) „h A detailed process will be available in the Notary Guidebook (replaces the previous Notarization by Mark section)"

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/12/13 8:35am
Msg #480156

Re: SIGNATURE BY PROXY replaces signature by mark

But it doesn't say "replaced". And an illiterate person wouldn't necessarily be disabled. I see nothing to suggest any signature by mark procedure that used to exist would be done away with (unless it was part of a law that got repealed when the new one passed).

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 8/12/13 10:04am
Msg #480163

VT- My previous post is a quote from the SOS.

I didn't make this up
http://www.filinginoregon.com/pages/forms/notary/2013-notary-updates.pdf

However, I agree with you in that I did not find sig by mark specifically addressed in the new law. I wondered though if they intended for the proxy rule to replace sig by mark. I have not come up with a scenario where you would need both options-maybe you have? I plan to inquiry further.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/12/13 10:48am
Msg #480167

Re: VT- My previous post is a quote from the SOS.

Looking at Oregon's current guide (p. 45) it says "It is used when the signer cannot make a full signature because of infirmity or physical handicaps. Oregon statutes do not speak to notarizing a signature by mark. The following directions indicate “best practice” as understood by the Secretary of State."

So if there is no law now, and the new law doesn't mention signing by mark, then there is no reason to think signature by mark would be any less legal, or any less eligible for notarization, on September 4 than it will be on September 1. The language about "replacing" signature by mark hints the SOS is headed toward exceeding his/her authority. But the SOS could get away with it if he/she merely describes proxy signatures as a better practice than signature by mark.

Also note the present guide does not address the case of an illiterate person who is healthy and has no infirmity or physical handicaps. It also does not address the case of a person who is asked to sign his/her name in Roman letters, but only knows how to sign in some other alphabet.

Reply by sigtogo/OR on 8/12/13 3:19pm
Msg #480201

I'm glad you have such an interest in Oregon Notarial Law VT

but please note: the old guide and old laws will no longer be in effect. thus if sig by mark is not discussed in new law, it no longer applies.

here is the email I received:
"The 2013 Oregon Legislature adopted the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, completely replacing the old notarial statutes with modern and standard language. Please see our announcement page at http://www.filinginoregon.com/pages/notary/notary_news/notary-law-changes.html to see a copy of the new law and proposed rules. To match the updated laws, the Secretary of State has modernized its method of commissioning Oregon notaries public, too. The new system will be in place beginning September 3, 2013."

Reply by VT_Syrup on 8/12/13 4:03pm
Msg #480206

Re: I'm glad you have such an interest in Oregon Notarial Law VT

The way I read the sequence:

As of January 2012 when the old Oregon guide was published, the SOS had reviewed the laws and hadn't found anything about signature by mark. The SOS included best practices in the old guide.

The Oregon version of ROLNA was passed and set to become effective September 3, 2013. It doesn't contain anything about signature by mark, so any existing customs, court decisions, etc., about signatures by mark remain as they were (unless some other law that hasn't been mentioned, passed in the mean time, affected signature by mark).

The Oregon SOS could stop publishing the advice about best practices for signatures by mark, but just because the SOS stops publishing it doesn't suddenly make signatures by mark worse than they were in the past. Of course, the SOS could change his/her mind. Perhaps he/she might discover some law or court decision that had been overlooked, that would change the advice.