In probating a document, what minimum requirements must the notary
impose before completing notarization under the following
extraordinary circumstance?

A document has been executed, complete with the signatures of two
witnesses.  The document is dated by year and month only.  One of the
witnesses has  signed a second time on the line following the
probating oath.  Several years later, the probating witness comes
before the notary and indicates that the probating signature is hers. 
The notary is required by the form of the document to sign a statement
as follows:  "Personally, appeared before me the undersigned witness
and made oath that (s)he saw the within named person(s), sign, seal
and as his/her/their act and deed and that (s)he with the other
subscribed witness above witnessed the execution thereof.  Sworn to
before me this ___ day of ____________________."

Is simple verification of signature, without regard to circumstances
of its premature appearance or to circumstances of execution of the
document, adequate to withstand contest or must other requirements be met?

Hello Raofsiam ~

I can see why you asked your question and you have reason to be
concerned.

Although you didn't say what state you are in, it is generally
understood that the duties of notaries are as follows:

 "The two most common duties of a notary public are frequently
misunderstood and are usually referred to as "notarizing a signature."
To administer an oath means that you ask the person to make a solemn
statement under the penalties of perjury that the information
contained in the document is true."
[ "Notarial Practice and Procedures," Notaries.com - 
http://www.notaries.com/faq_practices.htm ]

In the above case, you are not asking the person to sign anything, you
are merely asking her to swear or affirm that she "signed" and
"witnessed the execution".

If you do not know the person, ask for identification to make sure the
person making the affirmation is who she says she is, and then that
she affirms the above statement is true.

Make a note in your Notary Log of these procedures, and for all
intents and purposes, your job is done.

Search terms used (these will produce results for most states, but
they're all similar so far as affirmations and oaths) -

 - Notary affirmations
 - Notary duties

Hope this answers your dilemma

Serenata

---

Request for Answer Clarification by raofsiam-ga on 12 Mar 2003 09:20 PST

Thank you for promptness and careful wording of your answer.  Your
answer  indicates that the probating witness must affirm that 1)  she
signed and 2) she witnessed the execution.  Would you please elaborate
on "witnessed the execution": e.g., must the witness recall or affirm
the presence and identity of the second witness, the nature of the
document, the specific location of the execution, the approximate
date, and/or other circumstances?  Can you support your elaboration by
citing a standard reference or othe documentation.

---

Clarification of Answer by serenata-ga on 12 Mar 2003 11:03 PST

Hello ~

Perhaps I misunderstood what you had written ?

The Notary is saying that Witness "personnally appeared ... and made
oath that (s)he saw the within na med person(s) sign, seal and as
his/her/their act and deed ... and that (s)he with the other
wubscribed witness above witnessed the execution thereof..."

If that is the case, the Notary need nee only  ask the witness under
oath  "that she  saw everyone sign the document as their own act and
deed and that she and the other person witnessed the document".

A Notary can administer oaths in most jurisdictions, and would ask the
question, "do you swear or affirm that you saw the within named
person(s) sign seal as his/her/their act and deed, and that you and
the other witness were witnesses to the execution thereof?"

If the person answers in the affirmative, the Notary can therefore
swear to that, affix his/her seal and it is done.

Hope this clarified it,
Serenata

---

Request for Answer Clarification by raofsiam-ga on 12 Mar 2003 18:39 PST

The original question and the preceeding request for clarification
were not intended to imply the perspective of a notary engaged in the
process of notarization.  Rather, what is sought is the minimum
determination IN RETROSPECT that the notary would have been required
to impose on the probating witness in order to justify the
notarization.  For example, suppose that the probating witness can
recall no specifics of the execution, not even who was the second
witness.  Must then the notary refuse notarization?

---

Clarification of Answer by serenata-ga on 12 Mar 2003 19:45 PST

Hi Raofsiam ~

I am sorry, I did not understand exactly what you were asking.

Let's take that last clarification and answer the following question:

"... suppose that the probating witness can recall no specifics of the
execution, not even who was the second witness.  Must then the notary
refuse notarization?"

As a former attorney (I am no longer licensed to practice law), I have
witnessed the signing of many wills, and in many cases, I did not know
the other witness nor the person executing the Will. In most cases
over the last 20 or so years, there is nothing special (unless, of
course, the person was my client) that would cause me to remember any
of the specifics of the will or the signing.

I could, however, attest under penalty of perjury that it is my
signature, and I signed it before these witnesses - otherwise I would
not have signed it. And that would suffice for the Notary to notarize
my sworn statement.

You could also ask the witness to sign an identical statment to the
same effect as is already on the statement before you at this time. 
And could then notarize it. The witness is swearing it is her
signature. You are reporting the fact the witness has sworn to the
cirumstances. You do not have to ascertain the truth of the matter.

Lastly, if you really do not feel comfortable notarizing the document
in either of the above circumstances, then do not do so.

You are only notarizing the sworn statement that the witness did as
she has signed she did.

You are not responsible for the truth of the witness' sworn statement,
only that the witness is making the statement under oath and that is
what you are notarizing.

I hope this time I was able to clarify the answer for you, and forgive
my misunderstanding what you were asking.

Yours ever so,
Serenata

I feel that the Researcher made a highly competent and conscientious
effort to provide a completely satisfactory answer,
but the answer was plagued by a perspective different than that
intended by the question.  My original question should have
indicated explicitly a retrospective view point.  The Researcher was
not justified in assuming an ongoing process nor that the witness
signed the oath with a full knowledge of what she was doing (a layman
signing in the wrong place and time).