Is the notary responsible or at least negligent or at least negligent per se !!!

28 Jul

(1) Notaries Public § 1–Disciplinary Proceedings–Time for Instituting.

Disciplinary action taken by the Secretary of State against a notary public was not barred by the fact that the proceeding was instituted more than three years after the notary’s alleged improper act and more than one year after its discovery. Statutes of limitation barring civil actions brought by aggrieved parties are inapplicable to a disciplinary proceeding of a state administrative agency and there is no specific time limitation statute pertaining to the revocation or suspension of a notary’s commission.

(2a , 2b) Notaries Public § 1–Disciplinary Proceedings–Suspension of Commission–Failure to Faithfully Perform Duties–Gross Negligence.

The Secretary of State properly suspended the commission of a notary public under Gov. Code, § 8214.1, subd. (d), for failure to fully and faithfully perform her duties as a notary public in that she had certified the personal appearance and acknowledgment of a man who in fact did not appear before her. The notary’s attempted characterization of her error as “clerical” was unavailing since she had completely failed to read the certificate before signing it. Such failure was gross negligence and consequently a failure to faithfully perform her notarial duty as a matter of law.

[See Cal.Jur.3d, Notaries Public and Commissioners of Deeds, § 5; Am.Jur.2d, Notaries Public, § 13.]

(3) Statutes § 44–Construction–Aids–

Contemporaneous Administrative Construction.

Though the ultimate interpretation of a statute is a judicial function, a court must accord great respect to the views of the expert administrative body charged with enforcing a particular statute.

(4) Notaries Public § 1–Disciplinary Proceedings–Suspension of Commission–Failure to Maintain Records.

The Secretary of State properly imposed a one-month suspension of a notary public’s commission (to run concurrently with another suspension) for failure to maintain a record of transactions as required by former Gov. Code, § 8206. Retention by the title company that employed the notary of photographic copies of the instruments she certified in a file to which she had access was not a substitute for her obligation to personally maintain separate records. Reasonably interpreted, the former statute required a readily accessible, separate log of official transactions by date rather than the mere retention of photographic copies of all instruments certified or proved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: