SummaryHouse File 910 adjusts the commissioning procedures for both resident and nonresident Notary commission applicants; clarifies that all Notaries and ex officio notarial officers must obtain and use an official notarial stamp; and permits a principal with a physical limitation that prevents the principal from signing or making a mark to direct another person to sign or affix his or her signature, mark or name.
AffectsRepeals Section 359.05; adds Section 359.091; and amends Sections 357.021, 358.028, 358.09, 358.15, 358.48, 359.01, 359.02, and 359.03 of the Minnesota Statutes.
AnalysisHouse File 910 is the result of a lengthy process to revise Minnesota’s Notary statutes, initiated by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie who first formed a legislative work group in 2007 to reform the statutes. The NNA participated in the work group and advocated for mandatory journal-keeping, standards for satisfactory evidence of identity, heightened rules of conduct and ethical sanctions, and working into the statute provisions from the National eNotarization Standards adopted by the National Association of Secretaries of State. Sadly, the work group rejected these proposals, but did incorporate into the enacted bill a couple of NNA’s recommendations. It adopted procedures allowing a principal signer who is unable to sign or make a mark to direct a person to sign his or her signature or name and a provision from the Model Notary Act asserting that the Notary’s stamp and journal are the personal property of the Notary. However, instead of bringing true reform to Minnesota’s Notary statutes, HF 910 basically reshuffles the chairs of the commissioning process and makes substantial technical changes to the statute without effecting significant change. That said, there are some good reforms in HF 910. For example, the bill requires all ex officio notarial officers to obtain an official notarial stamp, which will lend greater credence to all notarial acts performed in Minnesota. In choosing to replace the word “seal” with “stamp” throughout the statutes, the legislature adopted a welcome provision clarifying that a notarial inking “stamp” is deemed to be a “seal” for the purposes of admission of a document in court. This is important because the evidence rules of Minnesota make any notarized document containing an official seal of a public officer “self-authenticating” – that is, exempt from further requirements to “prove up” the document entered into court as evidence. Given the highly mobile society of the 21st century, the bill repealed a provision only allowing residents of Wisconsin, Iowa, and North and South Dakota who reside in a county bordering Minnesota to apply for a Minnesota Notary commission. Policymakers understood that there are many individuals who may not live in a county bordering Minnesota but who commute to work in Minnesota and need a Notary commission to do their jobs. We also believe that the repeal of MS 359.05, a statute that required a Notary to include his or her name and expiration date on every notarized document even though this information is in the Notary’s official seal, was long overdue. Even with these noteworthy changes, HF 910 underachieves in bringing significant reform and greater integrity to notarial acts performed in Minnesota.
Read House File 910.