RE: [legalxml-enotary] Re: Analysis of Use cases for e-notarisations

["Nick Pope" <pope@secstan.com>]

Looks like a realistic scenario where e-notarisation would be worthwhile.

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jmessing [mailto:jmessing@law-on-line.com]
> Sent: 18 March 2004 23:56
> To: ST-ETRUST@MAIL.ABANET.ORG; legalxml-enotary@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [legalxml-enotary] Re: Analysis of Use cases for
> e-notarisations
>
>
> This gets into what is called batch processing in an electronic
> environment.
>
> With an electronic workflow, the boss could have a list of bonds
> that had been prepared and double-checked by a subordinate, click
> a button, and properly state to the notary that he had just
> signed them all in her presence in the morning. Assuming the
> application worked as intended and there were no glitches, this
> would be true. The notary could then batch notarize each
> signature by an application that looped through the list of
> bonds, which would represented by an index of sorts. The whole
> group could be processed in seconds. The electronic signatures of
> the boss would be affixed in the presence of the notary, although
> they would not necessarily be affixed individually, but rather in
> a batch. In this regard, electronification of the processes would
> obviate a technical legal insufficency in the manual signing
> scenario of wet signatures described by Bill, because the
> signings there did not technically take place in the presence of
> the notary.
>
> At least that is my view of it. The dependency upon the
> application's accuracy should be referenced in the notarization
> in my view for proper audit purposes.
>
> Obviously, the more the notarization(s) depend upon automated
> processes, the more controversial the entire proposition becomes,
> but it nonetheless does have some advantages to electronify these
> processes, where deviations like the one Bill built into his
> example are tolerated for the most part out of a need for
> practicality in the workplace.
>
> We have had at least one similar case involving computer
> processing in Arizona courts, where, if I recall correctly,
> processes were allowed to establish an outcome using the business
> records exception to the hearsay rule, but not it was not in the
> notarial area.
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From:         Bill Anderson <banderson@nationalnotary.org>
> Reply-To:     Bill Anderson <banderson@nationalnotary.org>
> Date:          Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:35:58 -0800
>
> >Another different case based in a corporate setting:
> >
> >A Notary bonding and insurance company must process upwards to 250 Notary
> >bonds a day, all requiring notarization. A clerk in the office (a Notary)
> >records the journal entries for the bonds and individually notarizes each
> >after they are signed by her boss, whom she personally knows.
> The bonds are
> >notarized with an acknowledgment. Due to the high volume, the boss signs
> >them all at home the night before and then appears in person before the
> >clerk to acknowledge the signatures on the bonds the next
> morning and sign
> >the journal entries. The date of notarization is the morning the boss
> >appears before the clerk, not the night before when the bonds are signed.
> >
> >In this scenario, high volume of one type of document is the ticket. This
> >could be a bond, a mortgage satisfaction or assignment. All are
> done in high
> >volume.
> >
> >William A. Anderson
> >Notary Affairs Manager
> >National Notary Association
> >818.739.4064
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: WROSCH Thomas E [mailto:Thomas.E.Wrosch@state.or.us]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 3:20 PM
> >To: ST-ETRUST@MAIL.ABANET.ORG
> >Subject: Re: Analysis of Use cases for e-notarisations
> >
> >Bill and John's cases are the examples I was thinking of, and I think are
> >typical of the notarizations that are seen throughout the country. There
> >are,
> >of course, many others that might be high volume for one state
> but not for
> >others, such as notarized initiative petitions, drivers
> licenses, certified
> >copies (many states don't allow those).
> >
> >In light of my assignment, all I can think of doing is to address Nick's
> >questions of electronic interfaces for perhaps two or three
> cases. Is that
> >right? In other words, document today's process (using John and
> Bill's work)
> >and identify the hand-off/interfaces?
> >
> >My thought is to use John's mortgage document scenario,
> especially in view
> >of
> >PRIA's work, and Bill's notarized affidavit (with John's
> apostille), which
> >are
> >very typical use cases. The latter would be representative as well of a
> >number
> >of adoption type transactions and forms that go to a government;
> the former
> >is
> >good for recording purposes, and perhaps would apply somewhat equally to
> >court
> >filings.
> >
> >What I don't see is the strictly B2B transaction, which is most
> likely to be
> >wholly electronic, if any are. John's mortgage transaction
> implies it, under
> >shipped to various parties. In fact, the electronically recorded
> documents
> >I've seen had a set up of Escrow closing (notarization) to bank to county
> >recorder.
> >
> >I like Nick's graphic (I'm technologically challenged here), but I'm not
> >sure
> >how to incorporate it into this scheme.
> >
> >Tom
> >
> >Tom Wrosch
> >Office of the Secretary of State
> >State of Oregon
> >thomas.e.wrosch@state.or.us
> >(503) 986-1522
> >fax: (503) 986-1616
> >
> >>>> banderson@nationalnotary.org 3/18/2004 2:57:00 PM >>>
> >Another case:
> >
> >A signer needs to a durable power of attorney for health care notarized
> >granting authority to a designated agent in the event he/she is unable to
> >make health care decisions. He/she goes to the Notary, has the document
> >notarized, and then requests the Notary to certify x number of
> copies of the
> >POA to distribute to his/her physician, next of kin, pastor,
> yadi, yada. In
> >this scenario, no document is publicly recorded, but is retained by the
> >interested parties until the time of need.
> >
> >Another case:
> >
> >Person A wishes to sponsor person B, a non-naturalized citizen of another
> >country who is residing in the U.S. Person A must complete an
> affidavit of
> >support (go here:
> http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/i-134.pdf
> >).
> >
> >After Person A swears the oath and has his/her signature
> notarized, the form
> >is submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.
> This scenario
> >is one in which a federal arm of the U.S. requires a notarial act.
> >
> >BTW, John M. that "little book" in your scenario is actually quite large,
> >and if Enjoa is used, is completely electronic! ;)
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >William A. Anderson
> >Notary Affairs Manager
> >National Notary Association
> >818.739.4064
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Nick Pope [mailto:pope@secstan.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:35 AM
> >To: ST-ETRUST@MAIL.ABANET.ORG
> >Subject: Re: Analysis of Use cases for e-notarisations
> >
> >John,
> >
> >Having identified these scenarios it is possible to identify the points
> >where interfaces to the electronic domain may occur? At what point would
> >the documents become electronic. What forms of authentication would
> >involve electronic interactions?
> >
> >Nick
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ABA-OASIS [mailto:ST-ETRUST@MAIL.ABANET.ORG]On Behalf Of jmessing
> >> Sent: 17 March 2004 14:28
> >> To: ST-ETRUST@MAIL.ABANET.ORG
> >> Subject: Re: Analysis of Use cases for e-notarisations
> >>
> >>
> >> Let me make a first stab at a couple of use cases. Anyone else
> >> please feel free to jump in to add, correct, or comment.
> >>
> >> 1. Standard notarization for mortgage origination. Signer
> >> presents him/herself at a title company office to close a
> >> residential real estate transaction and is presented with a stack
> >> of papers several inches thick. Some need to be notarized, others
> >> just signed. The notarized documents generally relate to
> >> documents that will be recorded in a land office where they will
> >> be publicly accessible. These may include the deed to the
> >> property, a mortgage to secure the loan on the property, and/or a
> >> deed of trust in favor of the lender, which will secure the new
> >> loan of the buyer. A notary witnesses the signing, has the signer
> >> sign a little book containing all such witnessed transactions in
> >> consecutive order, and affixes his/her own signature and seal to
> >> the notarized documents. The documents are shipped off to their
> >> various destinations, with the notarized ones winding up in the
> >> public registry. When recording is completed, the loan is funded,
> >> the transaction closes, and life goes on.
> >>
> >> 2. Apostille. Let's say the buyer in the previous example dies
> >> and leaves the house to a foreign relative, a UK citizen, who
> >> wishes to sell his/her interest in it to another UK resident. The
> >> prospective purchaser of the property wants to be sure that the
> >> prior sale to the decedent was valid and in the course of doing
> >> his/her due diligence, seeks assurance that the notary involved
> >> in the previous sale transaction was a valid notary. By means of
> >> a procedure with the office of the Secretary of State of the
> >> jurisdiction where the house is located, a certification can be
> >> obtained that the notary was in fact a notary, that the signature
> >> of the notary is valid, and the seal is genuine. This is done by
> >> a person in the Secretary of State's office. A check is made of
> >> the signature and seal on file as against the ones appearing on
> >> the documents containing the signature and seal to be certified
> >> as valid. A check is also made of the effective date of the
> >> notary's commission. If all check!
> >> s out properly, the certification is sent to England, the
> >> interest is transferred, and life again goes on.
> >>
> >> In the second example, there was no in person contact with the
> >> notary initiated by the Secretary of State.
> >>
> >> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >> From: Nick Pope < pope@secstan.com >
> >> Reply-To: Nick Pope < pope@secstan.com >
> >> Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:41:53 -0000
> >>
> >> >John and all in the enotary group.
> >> >
> >> >Following on from our meeting are tried to think further on what
> >> is required
> >> >for analysing the requirements for e-notarisation and found
> >> myself heading
> >> >off to the newly found planet Sedna.
> >> >
> >> >Anyway here goes: What I believe is needed is something that
> >> considered the
> >> >entities involved in use case of notarisation, their role in the
> >> different
> >> >forms of authentication and how this would interface to the electronic
> >> >domain.
> >> >
> >> >For example, is the document presented by the subject in
> electronic form?
> >> >Is identity authentication done in non-electronic domain? Does
> >> information
> >> >concerning the identity authentication need to be represented in the
> >> >electronic domain? ...........
> >> >
> >> >I attach a picture of the entities and authentications
> involved. For an
> >> >example use case can the work flow be identified?
> >> >
> >> >Hope this helps.
> >> >
> >> >Nick
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the
> roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/legalxml-enotary/memb
ers/leave_workgroup.php.