Posted by FlaNotary2 on 9/26/13 11:05am
Msg #486054

Florida journal bill - update

I have spoken with the staff director of the Commerce & Tourism committee regarding SB 172. I have provided them with my suggested changes. With the changes I've suggested, the notary should be able to record multiple documents for one entry, and the requirement that the notary record the serial number and expiration date of identification would be removed. The goal is that notaries should be able to continue using their MOJOs as they do now. I also suggested that they specify that a notary's journal is not a public record, and that it is not open for public inspection. I suggested that they specify that the notary can issue a copy of an individual entry, but only to the person named in the entry, or upon court order or subpoena. I also suggested they get rid of the time requirement.

In regards to keeping the journal 5 years, I recommended that notaries be required to keep the journals, only because acts can be called into question many years after the fact. However, I recommended that the statute allow notaries to convert their paper journals to electronic (either by scanning or transcription) to avoid notaries from having to keep dozens of journals forever.

Let me know your thoughts.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/26/13 11:15am
Msg #486057

I think issue/expiration date of ID should remain - that's your proof the ID was current. (what I record in my journal is their name as on ID, their D.O.B., Issue date and Expiration Date)

Remove address requirement

Other than that I like your ideas, Robert. Did they mention anything about fingerprint requirements, by any chance?

Reply by jba/fl on 9/26/13 11:50am
Msg #486065

No to fingerprints (my vote on this idea).

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 9/26/13 12:09pm
Msg #486073

Re: Florida journal bill -

Fingerprints weren't brought up but personally I don't keep fingerprints and don't particularly want to. I think address is pretty standard - don't most of us record the address?

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 9/26/13 3:41pm
Msg #486141

I do not record address....

As I said - I record names, DOB, Issue Date, Expiration Date, type of ID and, if DL or State ID - State Issued.

No addresses.

Reply by HisHughness on 9/26/13 12:19pm
Msg #486075

The reasons for including an address of a signer in a journal substantially exceed the reasons not to do so.

Once a notary's commission expires, he or she is no longer a state official; any responsibility toward retention of <state> records at that point is solely for the benefit of the individual notary. Thus, a state official should be charged with journal safekeeping after the retirement of the notary. A better approach is to require the journals be surrendered to the county clerk, under a requirement that they be retained and catalogued in such a manner that they would be accessible if needed.

I do not want the responsibility for maintaining a state record ad infinitum, whether it be in digital or hard-copy format. I'm certainly not going to expend the time to copy all my journals, and when I make my inevitable transfer to an old folks' home, I certainly don't want to drag scores of journals with me. Taking copies of all my divorce papers is burdensome enough.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 9/26/13 12:52pm
Msg #486084

The only problem with that is now the bill has to

allocate funds to whatever office is going to act as depository for the thousands upon thousands of journals. And that bill is not going to pass with our money-tight governor.

Reply by jba/fl on 9/26/13 1:13pm
Msg #486090

Re: The only problem with that is now the bill has to

They will have to throw them in a room and lock the door until the next one. I think someone from CA said that appears to be what they are doing there.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 9/26/13 1:45pm
Msg #486109

Exactly - and the point is to be able to look back in case

an act is called into question. I think the notary is far more competent to take care of the journals then the clerk of court.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 9/26/13 1:49pm
Msg #486110

Re: Exactly - and the point is to be able to look back in case

If they want to have some government office store the journals of former notaries, they should require the government to hold harmless the notary in the event the journal is lost, that is, the government would bear the expense of any lawsuit against the notary if there is a reasonable possibility that information in the lost journal would lead to the verdict going in the notary's favor.

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 9/26/13 2:07pm
Msg #486115

I'd just rather keep my journals. If I get tired of keeping

them, I just scan them.

Or, I can just keep an electronic journal.

Easy solutions.

Reply by HisHughness on 9/26/13 2:16pm
Msg #486119

Re: Exactly - and the point is to be able to look back in case

To expect a notary to safeguard state documents after he or she is no longer a state official doesn't really evidence an understanding of what is being expected of the notary, or how government works.

If the notary wishes to keep the journals for <his> use, then no state intervention is required; the notary simply finds a closet to stack them in. If, on the other hand, they are being kept on behalf of the state, do you really expect an individual, with no official capacity at all, to safeguard them for the government? Based on that approach, a teacher would be expected to keep report cards for her students, absolving a school district of the responsibility. We could fire county recorders and demand that real estate brokers keep records of deeds on behalf of the county. There would be no central repository for property surveys; you want to know how the old 50,000 acre Flying Finger Ranch was divided up, you go to 217 surveyors to ascertain how 158,548 current tracts are divided.

Fortunately, in Texas more seasoned heads have prevailed. When I move to the OldePhartz Home, the trunk of my Taurus will not be packed with notary journals. They will be in the hands of the county clerk, where they belong.