where to get a will notarized

[TrustUser]

i am not interested in playing lawyerese games with you. i did not supply false information, but rather helpful. instead of saying "could not", it would have been totally accurate if i had said "highly, highly improbable".

since you have nothing to back up your point of view, you want me to provide all the detail, so that you can nitpick on a statement, instead of actually trying to help the op. typical lawyer ploy when he has no real argument. try to confuse the issue.

believe me, i know how lawyers are.

i gave the op solid info. get your signatures notarized, whenever possible. it cant hurt, and may very well help.

i will tell the op that a notary is something that the law has set up to verify signatures. a witness is not. and i will let him use his own head to make a decision about what sort of signature is preferable.

enough said. i have no desire to dig your hole any deeper, as you are having trouble climbing out of it, as it is.

 

[cbg]

I am, or was, a notary. So I know what I'm talking about.

The notary's seal means that the person who has signed the document is the person he claims to be, or has shown sufficient proofs of that person to satisfy the notary. In our log, we indicate whether the person was known to us already or if they showed proof of identity.

The notary's seal does not have anything whatsoever to do with the truth, legality, or enforceability of the contents of the document. It relates to the identity of the signatory. Period.

 

[>Charlotte<]

The notary's seal does not have anything whatsoever to do with the truth, legality, or enforceability of the contents of the document. It relates to the identity of the signatory. Period.

Just to hammer it home--I am also a notary and that is absolutely correct.

I can notarize a document by John Smith that states he's King Jupiter, ruler of the Eighth Galaxy, and he's leaving all his moon money to Thor, God of Thunder--as long as he can properly identify himself as John Smith.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks CBG - well said.

 

[TrustUser]

i am not sure why the direction of this thread turned towards the comments of the 2 notaries.

i am well aware of what a notary does and does not do.

nowhere in this thread did i give the slightest implication that the job of a notary had anything to do with the contents of the document.

once again, i will say it very simply. as the notaries said, it is their job to verify the signature of the person signing. that he is who he says he is, and that he seems to be of sound mind. that is his LEGAL JOB.

someone contesting a will using the reason that so and so did not know what he was doing, etc. - heckuva a lot harder sell to a judge if the signature is notarized, as opposed to just being witnessed.

this is about as common sensical as you can get.

it is the whole purpose of the notary system - verifying signatures.

if you have a document, get a notarized signature if possible.

this is most especially true with a will if it distributes wealth, where there is apt to be people complaining about who gets what.

 

[cbg]

someone contesting a will using the reason that so and so did not know what he was doing, etc. - heckuva a lot harder sell to a judge if the signature is notarized, as opposed to just being witnessed.

Total and utter balderdash.

 

[Zigner]

nowhere in this thread did i give the slightest implication that the job of a notary had anything to do with the contents of the document.

You did EXACTLY that.

basically a notarized signature is one in which a state employee has verified that the signer is who he says he is, and he is of able mind, etc.

And, since we're on the subject...notaries aren't (necessarily) state employees. And, usually are not.

 

[anteater]

someone contesting a will using the reason that so and so did not know what he was doing, etc. - heckuva a lot harder sell to a judge if the signature is notarized, as opposed to just being witnessed.

Total and utter balderdash.

Now you went and done it, trustuser... You got cbg ticked at you!

"Total and utter balderdash." ???

Now there's a phrase you don't hear every day, Bullwinkle.

 

[TrustUser]

zigner,

you are making a total fool of yourself. you simply dont know when to stop digging your hole deeper. i said nothing of the sort. instead of telling me that i said that, why not CITE where i said that. i have seen your arrogance with other posters, but said nothing. you are a mouse trying to outfox a cat. i dont have my claws retracted, and will be happy to pounce on every dumb thing that you say.

notaries follow laws. laws are enforced by legalities.



cbg,

you may call it utter balderdash if you want. it does not change the fact that what i said is true.

all notaries need to follow certain laws. you may be a great notary, but i doubt you have the law experience to call my statement what you did.

i do have some common sense, though. and a verified signature is gonna look better to a judge than a witnessed one. and then what happens when that witness is no longer alive to verify anything ? if his signature is notarized, then we know that he was indeed the witness that he claims to have been. and everything was done before a notary, following laws.

hi anteater,

i have no problem with getting people ticked off at me, when the situation warrants it. and believe me, no one intimidates me. there is absolutely nothing i like better than making a pompous lawyer look bad.

lawyers like lots of loopholes and ambiguity. the last thing they want is for something to look crystal clear. sorta hard to make any sort of case.

 

[cbg]

You're digging yourself in deeper.

A notarized signature says nothing about the mind of the signatory, only his identity. It does not in any way, shape or form affect the enforceability of the document. It does not attest to the state of mind or capability of the signer.

I haven't seen my uncle John in fifteen years. If he walked up to me on the street today, I'd recognize him and know he is my uncle, but I have no CLUE what his state of mind is. For all I know, he's gone completely crackers since our last family reunion. I talk to one of his daughters on Facebook about four times a year; that's my sole contact with that branch of the family. If he contacted me and asked me to notarize his signature, I'd have no reason not to do so, and I have neither the means nor the obligation to determine his state of mind. I am neither a psychologist or a psychiatrist. But I do know his identity. That's all that I'm responsible for acertaining.

So, okay, I notarize his signature on his will leaving all his money to a cat's home. After his death, my cousins contest the will, as well they should. Does my notary seal on his signature say one blasted thing about his state of mind at the time? Or his ability to recognize his children? Not bloody likely. It means one thing and one thing only - I knew that he was the man he said he was when he signed it. If called upon to testify, I can say that and that he was not OBVIOUSLY crackers. But the psychiatrist hired by my cousins who says that a review of his medical records says he was only eight-seven cents on the dollar is going to carry a whole lot more weight than anything I have to say.

So enough with this "all signatures should be notarized" garbage you're trying to pull. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[>Charlotte<]

a verified signature is gonna look better to a judge than a witnessed one. and then what happens when that witness is no longer alive to verify anything ? if his signature is notarized, then we know that he was indeed the witness that he claims to have been. and everything was done before a notary, following laws.

The problem with the declarative "is gonna look better to a judge" is that it's impossible to prove or disprove, but I think we can already assume that same judge has read the statute that states wills are not required to be notarized.

Also, a notarization does not require documented identification if the testator is personally known to a notary. Same as a plain old "witness". And what if the notary is dead? Nope, no advantage there.

Unless the prospective testator is incognitive I have no idea if he's of sound mind or not. Nor is he required to demonstrate to me that he is of sound mind. I have no idea why he's signing or whether he's been coerced or scammed or anything else that might cause the instrument to be contested. If it is contested, I'm sure as heck not going to be asked to testify to any of that whether I notarized the damn thing or not.

If a non-notarized will is contested, the lack of a notary seal will not supersede the testimony of sworn witnesses.

No, I don't believe a notary seal is going to make a will more credible in the eyes of a judge, especially if his own state's statutes don't invalidate a will if there isn't one.

ETA: Or, basically, what cbg said. Even moreso, because "eighty-seven cents on the dollar" is a great line.

 

[anteater]

Even moreso, because "eighty-seven cents on the dollar" is a great line.

I liked "OBVIOUSLY crackers."

 

[cbg]

Sometimes my British roots come roaring out when I least expect them to.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Sometimes my British roots come roaring out when I least expect them to.

Then, "barking mad" would have been so much better.

 

[Zigner]

i said nothing of the sort.

I quoted you - I'm sorry if you can't comprehend the function of the quotes...