Vermont has passed RULONA. Section 5 of the version recommended by the Uniform Law Commission states
"(d) A notarial officer who certifies or attests a copy of a record or an item that was copied shall determine that the copy is a full, true, and accurate transcription or reproduction of the record or item."
The next page has some official comments by the Uniform Law Commission:
'“Certifies or attests a copy” – Subsection (d) provides that when certifying or attesting a copy of a record or item, a notarial officer certifies that: (1) the officer has compared the copy with the original record or item, and (2) has determined that the copy is a full, true, and accurate transcription or reproduction of the original record or item. This subsection directs the notarial officer to compare a record or item with a copy of the record or item. Therefore, the record or item must be presented to the notarial officer along with the copy so that the officer is able to make the comparison.'
"Certifying or attesting of a copy is usually done if it is necessary to produce a copy of a record when the original is in an archive or other collection of records and the archived record cannot be removed. In many cases, however, the custodian of the official archive or collection may also be empowered to issue an officially certified copy. When a copy officially certified by the custodian of the archive is available, it is official evidence of the state of the public archive or collection, and it may be better evidence of the original record than a copy certified by a notarial officer."
That's really all the official commentary I can find. It seems to me a good situation for a notary to make a certified copy would be when the person who wants to look at the record is a long way away, and the original cannot be risked in the mail, or the holder of the original can't be without it for the several days it would take to send it back and forth. An example would be a passport.
Another good situation would be an important document the notary just took an acknowledgement on must be sent in the mail, and the signer wants a copy in case it gets lost in the mail.
A tricky area is that the law doesn't use the word "original" but the commentary does. It can be hard for the notary to decide if a record is an original or a copy. The notary is usually not able to be certain that the record is what it purports to be. There doesn't seem any requirement in the law for the notary to even try to determine if the record is an original or if it is what it purports to be. |
