where to get a will notarized

[TrustUser]

since when does being regulated by the state mean the same thing as employed by the state???

you have just shown yourself to be a stupid idiot. i never said that being regulated by the state was the same thing as being employed by the state.

why dont you learn to read ? that was zigner's weak effort to confuse the issue, instead of dealing with the facts of the issue.

 

[TrustUser]

it is not at all important who the notary is employed by, any more than who a realtor is employed by. again, this was zigner's weak effort at changing the subject at hand.

what is important is the rules that they need to abide by. these are set by the state, in both examples.

most notaries work are employed by businesses, and do many things for said business other than notarization.

however, when they notarize, they now operate as agents of the state, following dictates of the state laws.

 

[>Charlotte<]

that was zigner's weak effort to confuse the issue, instead of dealing with the facts of the issue.

No, it was one way of demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. You said a notary is a state employee.

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

You can't even admit you're wrong about that and would rather try to side-step it by blathering on about "confusing the issue." Your ignorance about notaries is the issue.

ask the notary point blank what his/her responsibility is towards ascertaining the testator's soundness of mind, or his capability to understand what he is doing.

I think this thread is evidence that you're not prepared to take a notary's word for it.

in order to become a notary, or licensed agent of the state, one must study a lot in order to pass the test, and then keep updated...a notarized signature carries weight that a witnessed signature does not.

This is funny. When I got my commission "studying a lot" consisted of being given a handbook, some of which we read together as a class for about an hour. Then the instructor got side-tracked and we chatted about local restaurants and, if I recall correctly, San Fransisco for another hour. Then we took a test, which we completed by looking up the answers in the handbook. Next step was finding an elected official to "testify to our character". That consisted of me walking into the Register of Deeds office next door and saying "Will you sign this, please? Thanks." You don't have to do that anymore, but when you renew your commission you do have to take a test now. Online, at your convenience. With your handbook. And you have three months to complete it. Oh, and "keep updated" means buy a new handbook every once in a while.

I actually agree that a notarization carries more weight than a witness--on some documents. Because some documents require a notary. But some do not, and a will is one of those.

As I (and others) said before, the only time incompetence affects our responsibility as a notary is when the testator is obviously incompetent. In that case, no responsible notary will affix his seal to that document. Otherwise, the seal implies nothing more than confirmed identification. You can believe that, or not.

For anyone browsing this thread for information, take from it what you will. Remember: it wouldn't hurt to get your document notarized in any case, and you must absolutely do so if your document requires it. But if there is no such requirement you don't have to. If the validity of your document is ever contested it will be based on its content and other evidence, not the lack of a seal.

TrustUSer will continue to argue that he's right. He's not. Believe us, or believe him---your choice.

 

[cbg]

Trustuser has no idea what a notary has to do to become a notary.

I AM (or at least was) a notary (I didn't renew it because I didn't need it any more). I had to fill out a form that gave the reason I wanted to be a notary (my boss was setting up a new business and was tired of having to go to the bank several times a week); get four signatures from people who would be willing to be references for me (not one of them was ever called); pay $25 and send it in to the Secretary of State's office. A short time later I was called to come into Boston and be sworn it. I didn't have to "study very hard" or take any kind of test, and I very definitely was not told that I couldn't notarize someone's signature if they didn't have a clear understanding of what they were doing. MOST certainly I was not told that I couldn't notarize the signature of someone with Parkinson's.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Science fiction? It's not from life.

 

[TrustUser]

i gave you real life examples that i personally experienced with several notaries, so i know that they take some responsibility towards seeing that the testator has some sort of knowledge of what he is doing.

and i demonstrated that it would be easier for someone to produce a witnessed document, than a notarized one.

somehow, you think that having this gigantic system regulated by the state does nothing ? since witnesses are just as good ?

you are the one that needs to get real.

you keep harping on the stupid issue of "being a state employee". it has nothing to do with the situation at hand. notaries are regulated by the state, must follow state laws. while they are performing a notary function, they are obeying the laws of the state, not those of the business where they are employed. is that simple enough for you to understand ?

just get your important documents notarized. it is inexpensive, and carries more weight.

 

[TrustUser]

Trustuser has no idea what a notary has to do to become a notary.

I AM (or at least was) a notary (I didn't renew it because I didn't need it any more). I had to fill out a form that gave the reason I wanted to be a notary (my boss was setting up a new business and was tired of having to go to the bank several times a week); get four signatures from people who would be willing to be references for me (not one of them was ever called); pay $25 and send it in to the Secretary of State's office. A short time later I was called to come into Boston and be sworn it. I didn't have to "study very hard" or take any kind of test, and I very definitely was not told that I couldn't notarize someone's signature if they didn't have a clear understanding of what they were doing. MOST certainly I was not told that I couldn't notarize the signature of someone with Parkinson's.

Where are you getting this stuff from? Science fiction? It's not from life.

my sister is a notary and i know just what she went through in order to get it. perhaps in massachusetts they are sloppy.

and you continue to misquote me. do you have problems reading and comprehending ? i never said that you could not notarize a signature of someone with parkinson's. that is your error, again.

what i said was that the testator needs to be able to show that he has the ability to understand what he is doing to the notary.

the disease of parkinsons is a progressive one. not everyone who has it experiences all the symptoms of parkinsons. there are many instances of people with parkinsons who can fully demonstrate that they are of cognizant mind. there are some who can not.

you might want to enroll in a reading comprehension class, so you can quit making so many mistakes.

 

[TrustUser]

As I (and others) said before, the only time incompetence affects our responsibility as a notary is when the testator is obviously incompetent. In that case, no responsible notary will affix his seal to that document. Otherwise, the seal implies nothing more than confirmed identification. You can believe that, or not.

so a notary is required to deal with the competency of the testator ? thank you very much for finally admitting this.

 

[TrustUser]

If the validity of your document is ever contested it will be based on its content and other evidence, not the lack of a seal.

we are not talking about the validity of the DOCUMENT. we are talking about the validity of the signature. nowhere did i say anything about the function of the notary doing any sort of verification of the contents of the document.

so let me rephrase what you just said. if the validity of the signature is ever contested, a notarized one carries more weight than a witnessed one.

a notarized signature is one in which a legal "representative" (so you dont harp on the employee) of the state has gone through specific steps dictated to him by the state, in order to verify that the signature is of the testator, and the testator was able to demonstrate some level of competency.

a witnessed signature has no such legal protection.

it looks as though you may finally be starting to get it.

 

[TrustUser]

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.

charlotte, you may want to have a talk with cbg, and explain to her that a notarized signature does say something about the capability of the signer. this is the point i have been hammering home. it looks as though the nail has finally started to penetrate said home.

 

[TrustUser]

NONE. ABSOLUTELY NONE! Do you get it NOW dumba$$? Persons that provide notary services are not psychologists. They have no way to determine the soundness of a persons mind. What part of this do you not understand?

If you were a salesman at a car dealership, and someone came on here and said that you, as the salesman, had to determine the soundness of the mind of the crackhead that would be willing to pay $60,000 for an automobile, would you tell them that you are not a psychiatrist / psychologist and it's not in your job description? You bet you would!!

The same applies to a notary!!!! Got that?? Now stop it stupid. You are wrong and that is not going to change. You're an idiot.

charlotte, after you finish educating cbg, your next task is to educate old and tired.

until your last post, i dont recall anyone admitting that the notary had any responsibility regarding the soundness of mind of the testator. i have now shown you 2 posts where they claimed that the notary had no responsibility at all.

you see, i know exactly what notaries do and dont do, as i have had tons of real-life actual experience with them.

 

[TrustUser]

I actually agree that a notarization carries more weight than a witness--on some documents. Because some documents require a notary. But some do not, and a will is one of those.

this is a common mistake that people make. your logic on the above statement can be broken down to the following :

if a document does not require a notarized signature, then a notarized signature is of no benefit.

and this is incorrect logic. the fact that something is not required, does not necessarily mean that it has no benefit.

whether or not one is required to wear a seatbelt has nothing to do with whether there is any benefit to wearing a seatbelt.

same is true on documents. if the validity of a signature is questioned, a notarized signature is more defining than a witnessed signature, no matter whether the document in question required a notarized signature or not.

i will continue to hammer this same point home. get your documents NOTARIZED. this is especially true for those documents where disputes are likely to occur. and for those people who insist on using a will to disburse their monetary belongings, a will is extremely high on the list of documents apt to be questioned.

on the trusts that i do for myself, i sign, date, and thumb print every single page. each page is labeled 1 of 10, 2 of 10, etc.

is this stuff required in order to have a valid trust ? no. does it help keep the document from being monkeyed with ? absolutely. and that is the purpose of it.

so again, the fact that something is not required is not necessarily a good reason not to do it.