Possible Elder Abuse Associated with Conversion of Trust Assets

[Ohiogal]

She wasn't dead when the funds were transferred. Even though she isn't around it doesn't change the fact that she had dementia and this all happened.

There is no husband so I assume you mean her son can contest the quitclaim deeds.

YOUR HUSBAND is what you mentioned. Why did your husband not do anything before now? When was the estate probated? Oh and NO ONE is ENTITLED to an inheritance. NO ONE.

 

[TrustUser]

i live in california. and at least with the notaries that i have personal contact with - they do indeed try to ascertain if the person is lucid.

it is not just about verifying the person's driver license.

 

[Proserpina]

i am not trying to prosecute the notary.

just saying that he does have a responsibility to do his best to determine if said person really knows what he is doing.

a good rule of thumb - if notary has doubts, dont notarize.

few people are "awkward enough" to make one think that he is demented.

That in itself makes it obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do carry on, though.

 

[CdwJava]

i am not trying to prosecute the notary.

just saying that he does have a responsibility to do his best to determine if said person really knows what he is doing.

a good rule of thumb - if notary has doubts, dont notarize.

few people are "awkward enough" to make one think that he is demented.

When I referred to prosecution, I referred to the possibility of someone being prosecuted for larceny with regards to the assets. Since a criminal action is not apparently in the cards, your husband needs an attorney to review any possible civil action he might be able to take. But, even that will be difficult unless it can be definitively shown that the deceased was unable to handle her own affairs and was unlawfully taken advantage of. Most often these are settled out of court, but he will need an attorney to help him. This will NOT be a do-it-yourself deal.

 

[davew128]

i live in california. and at least with the notaries that i have personal contact with - they do indeed try to ascertain if the person is lucid.

I also live in California and the person in my office who used to be a notary said there is no such thing.

 

[CdwJava]

And while something might be common sense or even good practice, that doesn't mean there is any legal duty for a notary to ascertain whether the person is entirely lucid. While I suspect that most notaries might be suspicious if the party present was out of it and confused, that does not appear to be sufficient to legally compel the notary to any specific action as a result.

 

[TrustUser]

I also live in California and the person in my office who used to be a notary said there is no such thing.

perhaps the ones in my area try to live up to higher standards !!

 

[TrustUser]

just to re-emphasize the third guiding general principle for a notary

The Notary shall require the presence of each signer and oath-taker in order to carefully screen each for identity and willingness, and to observe that each appears aware of the significance of the transaction requiring a notarial act.

 

[CdwJava]

just to re-emphasize the third guiding general principle for a notary

The Notary shall require the presence of each signer and oath-taker in order to carefully screen each for identity and willingness, and to observe that each appears aware of the significance of the transaction requiring a notarial act.

I wholeheartedly believe in principles, and agree that a notary should be certain that the person they are speaking with appears to be cognizant. But, a principle rarely equals a legal requirement.

Of course, the person may very well have been lucid when the notary was present, so this is all merely conjecture at this point.