Prohibited Acts & UPL Flashcards

A notary is employed by a large, publicly traded construction company. The notary's spouse is a salaried project manager for the same company. The spouse's annual bonus is tied to the overall profitability of the company, not to specific projects. The notary is asked to notarize a construction contract for a major project. According to Pennsylvania law, is this a prohibited act due to a conflict of interest?

Answer: No, as long as the notary's fee is not contingent on the completion of the notarized transaction.

Under RULONA, a notary may not perform a notarial act if they or their spouse has a direct or pecuniary interest in the record. However, the law clarifies that receiving a fee not contingent on the completion of the transaction, or being an officer/employee of a party company, does not in itself constitute a direct or pecuniary interest unless the individual personally benefits from the transaction beyond a regular salary or non-contingent bonus. Since the spouse's bonus is tied to overall profitability and not this specific contract, and the notary's fee is the standard allowed fee, it is not considered a prohibitive conflict of interest.

A Pennsylvania notary who is fluent in Spanish advertises their services in a local Spanish-language newspaper. The ad correctly includes the required disclaimer, 'I am not an attorney...' in Spanish. However, due to a printing error by the newspaper, the disclaimer is published in a tiny, 6-point font that is barely legible. Which of the following is true regarding the notary's liability?

Answer: The notary is strictly liable for the advertisement failing to be 'prominently' displayed.

Pennsylvania law requires that the disclaimer in any advertisement must be included 'prominently.' The notary is responsible for their advertising content. Even if the error was the newspaper's, the final product did not meet the legal standard of prominence. The law does not absolve the notary due to a third-party printer's mistake. While posting a sign is also required if the ad format doesn't permit the full disclaimer, it does not cure a defective print advertisement.

A signer brings a document to a notary that has already been signed. The notary notices that the notarial certificate is for a 'Verification on oath or affirmation.' The signer insists they signed it earlier and just need it notarized now. What is the notary's correct course of action?

Answer: Refuse the notarization because a verification requires the signature to be made in the notary's presence.

A verification on oath or affirmation (which includes affidavits and jurats) requires that the individual sign the record in the presence of the notary public. Since the document was pre-signed, the notary cannot perform this specific notarial act. An acknowledgment could have been performed if the signer acknowledged the existing signature, but the notary cannot independently change the notarial certificate. The correct and safest action is to refuse the specific act requested because its legal requirements cannot be met.

If a notary public's error or omission, such as failing to record the act in their journal, is discovered after the fact, what is the legal status of the notarial act itself under RULONA?

Answer: The notarial act is presumptively valid, but the notary faces sanctions.

Section 326 of RULONA specifies that the failure of a notary to perform a duty or meet a requirement does not, in itself, invalidate the notarial act. The act is still considered valid. However, this does not protect the notary from sanctions or penalties from the Department of State for their failure to comply with the law. The customer might also have other legal remedies to challenge the record based on laws other than RULONA.

A notary is asked to notarize a document for a corporation. The signer is the CEO, whom the notary knows personally. The document transfers a small parcel of land from the corporation to the CEO's spouse. The notary's spouse is a shareholder in the same publicly traded corporation. Which factor creates a prohibited conflict of interest for the notary?

Answer: The document benefiting the spouse of a corporate officer.

The direct conflict arises because the transaction benefits the spouse of the individual signer (the CEO). A notary may not perform a notarial act if their spouse has a direct or pecuniary interest. While the CEO's spouse is the direct beneficiary, the law focuses on the interest of the notary or the notary's spouse. However, the more critical conflict is that the notary cannot notarize a record in which the notary's *own* spouse has a direct interest. In this complex scenario, the most accurate answer reflecting a prohibited act is the benefit to the CEO's spouse, as it creates a direct interest in the transaction for a party involved, which is a prohibited act. The spouse being a shareholder in a *publicly traded* company is specifically listed as an exception and does not constitute a direct interest.

A notary advertises their services on a small business card where including the full 'I am not an attorney...' disclaimer is not practical due to size. According to Pennsylvania law, what must the notary do to remain in compliance?

Answer: Prominently display the full disclaimer at the place where notarial acts are performed.

Pennsylvania law anticipates that some forms of advertising, due to their size, may not permit the inclusion of the full, lengthy disclaimer. In such cases, the law requires that the statement 'shall be displayed prominently or provided at the place of performance of the notarial act before the notarial act is performed.' Therefore, having a compliant sign at their desk or place of business would satisfy the requirement for small-format advertising like a business card.