Minnesota Enacts Provisions Regarding Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts
The State of Minnesota enacted provisions relating to its Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts. These provisions are effective on January 1, 2019.
Section 5 provides that a notarial officer who takes an acknowledgment of record, verifies statements on oath, witnesses or attests signatures shall determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual that the individual appearing before the officer and making the acknowledgment, verification or appearing before the officer and signing the record has the identity claimed and that the signature on the record or statement verified is the signature of the individual.
Furthermore, a notarial officer who certifies a copy of a record or an item that was copied must determine that the copy is a full, true, and accurate transcription or reproduction of the record or item.
Section 6 requires an individual to appear personally before a notarial officer whenever the officer performs a notarial act regarding a record signed or a statement made by the individual regardless of whether the notarial act is completed on a tangible or an electronic record.
Section 7 provides that a notarial officer must identify an individual before performing a notarial act for that individual. A notarial officer may identify an individual through personal knowledge of the individual appearing before the officer. If an individual is not personally known to the notarial officer, the individual must provide satisfactory evidence of the individual’s identity, which may be through a passport, driver’s license, or a government-issued nondriver identification card or by means of an oath or affirmation of a credible witness.
A notarial officer may require additional identification of an individual if the officer is not satisfied with the individual’s identity. The amendment further provides that an officer may refuse to perform a notarial act if the officer is not satisfied that individual’s signature is knowingly and voluntarily made or has concern as to the competency or capacity of the individual.
The amendment acknowledges notarial acts performed by notarial officers in the State of Minnesota, another state of the United States, or under federal authority. It also recognizes notarial acts performed under the authority of a federally recognized Indian tribe and notarial acts performed in foreign states. The Act continues to recognize an “apostille” complying with the Convention de La Haye du 5 octobre 1961 (“Hague Convention”) as a means of providing conclusive authentication of notarial acts that are performed by a notarial officer of a foreign state. It also recognizes a consular authentication as an alternative means of providing that conclusive authentication of a foreign notarial act.
Section 15 lays down provisions relating to a remote online notary public. A remote online notary public is defined as “notary public who has registered with the secretary of state to perform remote online notarizations.”
A remote online notary public must keep a secure electronic journal of notarial acts performed by the remote online notary public. The electronic journal and electronic seal must be kept secure and under the remote online notary public’s exclusive control.
The remote online notary public may not allow another person to use the remote online notary public’s electronic journal or seal to perform notarial acts or for any unauthorized purpose.
A remote online notary public whose registration terminates must destroy the coding, disk, certificate, card, software, or password that enables electronic affixation of the online notary public’s official electronic signature or seal.
The amendment recognizes electronic notorial acts and puts them on the same level with notarial acts performed on tangible media. The amendment lays down the same requirements for and treatment of notarial acts, regardless of whether the acts are performed with respect to tangible or electronic media.
Section 16 provides that:
“if a law requires as a condition for recording that a document be an original, be on paper or another tangible medium, be in writing, or be signed, the requirement is satisfied by a paper copy of an electronic document bearing an electronic signature that a notary public has certified to be a true and correct copy of a document that was originally in electronic form and bearing an electronic signature.”
“A requirement that a document or a signature associated with a document be notarized, acknowledged, verified, witnessed, or made under oath is satisfied by a paper copy of an electronic document bearing an electronic signature of the person authorized to perform that act, and all other information required to be included, that a notary public has certified to be a true and correct copy of a document that was originally in electronic form and bearing an electronic signature of the person.”
“The office of the county recorder or the office of registrar of titles shall record a paper copy of a document that was originally in electronic form and that is otherwise entitled to be recorded under the laws of this state, provided that the paper copy has been certified to be a true and correct copy of the electronic original by a notary public duly commissioned under the laws of this state as evidenced by a certificate attached to or made a part of the document.”
Section 17 stipulates that a notarial act must be evidenced by a certificate of notarial act and sets out the requirements of that certificate. The certificate must be executed contemporaneously with the performance of the notarial act; be signed and dated by the notarial officer and, if the notarial officer is a notary public, be signed in the same manner as on file with the commissioning officer or agency; identify the jurisdiction in which the notarial act is performed; contain the title of office of the notarial officer; and if the officer is a notary public, indicate the date of expiration, if any, of the officer’s commission.
Section 19 provides for the mandatory contents of the official stamp and requires that it be capable of being copied along with the record with which it is affixed, attached or associated. Section 20 provides for the stamping device, which is defined under Section 2 as the means of affixing the official stamp to a tangible record or associating the official stamp with an electronic record. Section 20 lays the responsibility for controlling the stamping device and assuring that it not be used by others on the notary public.
Section 22 provides grounds for denying, refusing to renew, revoking, suspending, or condition commission of notary public. It also states that a notary may be removed from office only by the governor, the district court, or the commissioner of commerce and also lays down generally prohibited acts.
Section 23 provides that the secretary of state must maintain an electronic database of notaries public through which a person may verify the authority of a notary public to perform notarial acts; and which indicates whether a notary public has applied to the commissioning officer or agency to perform notarial acts on electronic records or to perform notarial acts.
The amendment also ensures that a notarial officer does not act in a deceptive or fraudulent manner. Section 4 prohibits a notarial officer from performing a notarial act with regard to a record to which the officer or the officer’s spouse is a party or in which either of them has a direct beneficial interest. Section 24 provides for prohibited acts. It prohibits a notary public from drafting legal records, giving legal advice, or otherwise practicing law. It also prohibits a notary public from acting as a consultant or expert on immigration matters or representing persons in judicial or administrative proceedings in that regard. It further prohibits a notary public from engaging in false or deceptive advertising and from unauthorized practice of law.
Rhona Kyeyune, LLM, is a regulatory compliance consultant with CLA. She is a graduate of Makerere University and earned her master of laws at Boston University School of Law.
Comments are closed.