Attorney acting a notary at the same time

[quincy]

I'm going to bow out of this with an "agree to disagree"

And you are welcome to do that.

I posted a link to Arizona's notary manual with Arizona laws. If Mommasita wishes to read through what is provided there and discuss it with a lawyer in Arizona who can personally review the documents that were signed, she can do that.

I think the signatures on the documents should have been notarized by someone other than the husband's attorney, though. But, even if the attorney should have had the signatures notarized by a different notary, I am not sure what difference this makes to Mommasita's case. It might make no difference.

 

[not2cleverRed]

I think Mommasita should be more upset about the woman potentially getting the short end of the stick in the divorce because she lacked counsel.

Perhaps she just hopes that there is a technicality that can be exploited to nullify the divorce, and the process can begin anew, this time more to the wife's advantage.

She is not alleging that the wife was forced to sign the papers at gunpoint, or even knifepoint. Whatever the "threats" were that deterred the wife from retaining counsel, she was not physically forced to sign the papers.

 

[quincy]

Yes. Mommasita (or the "wife" if Mommasita is not the wife) should have had an attorney. At the very least, she should have had an attorney review the documents prior to signing.

But (apparently) she didn't.