H.R. 3808, The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009
H.R. 3808, The Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 (full text here)
Version saved on October 1, 2010, 06:59:40, by webmaster:
H.R. 3808 would require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.
Detailed Summary
Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 – Requires each federal and state court to recognize any lawful notarization occurring in or affecting interstate commerce which is made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a state other than the state where the court is located.
Requires such a notarization to: (1) use a seal of office as symbol of the notary public’s authority; or (2) have the seal information, in the case of an electronic record, securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
Apr 27, 2010: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative’s position was not kept.
Sep 27, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 9/30/2010: Presented to President for signing.
From Washington Watch
See Open congress also
When the notary seal is placed on an affadavit the signer is, I believe, subject to perjury wherever the paperwork is presented. When the paper goes across a state line (a Michigan corp uses the affadavit in an Ohio case) I’m not certain if the feds would be interested, although the bulk foreclosure cases might be interesting to them.
So we’re about to export the Florida Foreclosure mess to the rest of the nation?
Actually I am suprised this is needed since the full faith and credit clause would seem to imply it. It does clear up the situation where one might be in one state and selling a property in another and need something notarized. Also it adds electronic features.
Actually it does not really affect the robo-signers as they lied in saying they had reviewed the details of the case at hand. What is needed there is a clause that the statements made are made under penalty of perjury.
Link to the text of the bill is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3808
This not only affects foreclosures, it could impact identity theft and aid illegal immigrants in gaining “official” documents, as eventually one or more states will dilute their notary laws to the point where someone could say they are anyone and get anything notarized without being present, without ID, without fingerprints. This law, if signed by the President, could potentially have far worse unintended consequences than what we are already going through.
Right you are, Laura. There are literally millions of transactions of various kinds in which people obtain notarizations using bad ID. The person who notarizes the statement has no way of knowing that the ID is counterfeit because without training and experience, it is difficult or impossible to detect bad docs. So, I would think just based on the potential for fraud alone it would be a bad idea to sign this bill. NancyO
In MA when getting a doc. notorized you have to provide a thumbprint right next to your signature in the notaries book.
Yep, Rdan, but down here in the small government South, you don’t have to. And, even if you did, no one is gonna search AFIS in a foreclosure action. The messes these foreclosures have created will be around for gazillions of years further undermining the value of real property everywhere in this country. NancyO
The improper foreclosure procedures is just the tip of the iceberg anyway. Improper transfer of title has broad implications. It means whatever unknown portion that affects the $11 trillion F&F&FHA MBS and private CDO bond market has tainted the whole market again. The bondholders will see a byzantine mess once bondholders start wondering how exactly the servicer gets the money to the bondholder. Toxic Waste 2.0 here we come. Shoot the portfolio first, let the lawyers argue what the dozen answers are later.
And good luck selling all those foreclosures, and non-foreclosures, Mr. or Ms. Marginally Employed Realtor(tm), when the public comes to the realization that our world renowned real estate and title insurance system is no better, and quite possibly worse than Mexico, or even some 3rd world country.
My thoughts exactly. Ho hum.
If this law allows valid title to real estate be complicated by anybody with a friendly notary it’s going to make the title insurance business real interesting. And probably unprofitable.
rdan,
It took me awhile to figure out what this was really all about. This bill will help accelrate and make easier foreclosures. the potential for fraud is high in an already complicated process. I believe this is going to be used to get around all the problems with the question, “who owns the title?” in all the foreclosures. AS is correct – this is going to make title insurance very interesting, and getting a really clear title tougher and tougher…
The USGov seems to be doing anything it feels will delay the pain that the real estate bubble cuased. We are pulling the bandaid aff very, very slowly and causing pain to be drawn out over years. We need to let real estate drop back to its natural level (anotehr 20-40% in bubble areas). This will entail someone holding the bag on incollateralized and probably uncollectable debt. Right now it looks like the Feds (i.e. taxpayers) are going to take the hit via Freddie and Fanny.
As for the bill, Obama should veto it. Today.
Islam will change
Was there a recorded vote in the Senate, and if so, where can it be found?
skr,
I beleive it passed both houses by voice vote. No record. But I’m not sure.
Islam will change
haHa. Isn’t that CoRev’s line?
Obama won’t sign bill that would affect foreclosure proceedings
By Jia Lynn Yang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 7, 2010; 2:34 PM
“Amid growing furor over the legitimacy of foreclosure proceedings, White House officials said Thursday that President Obama will not sign a two-page bill passed by lawmakers without public debate after critics said the legislation could loosen standards for foreclosure documents.”
“The bill, named the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, would require courts to accept document notarizations made out of state. Its sponsors intended the effort to promote interstate commerce. But homeowner advocates warn the new law could allow lenders to cut even more corners as they seek to evict homeowners.”
“White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president did not believe Congress meant to undermine consumer protections regarding foreclosure challenges. Still, Obama will use a “pocket veto,” which will effectively kill the legislation.”
“Democratic leaders on the Hill were scrambling to figure out how the bill managed to sail through both chambers of Congress without any objection. The episode may prove embarrassing for Democrats who in recent weeks have been calling for federal investigations into flawed paperwork, forged documents and other kinds of misconduct in foreclosure proceedings initiated by big lenders.”
“The House passed the bill in April by a voice vote, meaning there’s no record of who voted for or against the legislation. The Senate passed the bill on Sept. 27, just before recess, without any debate.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100704254.html?hpid=topnews
H.R.3808
ALL ACTIONS:
10/14/2009: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
1/4/2010: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
4/27/2010 5:15pm: Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 4/27/2010 5:15pm: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2919-2920)
4/27/2010 5:15pm: DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3808.
4/27/2010 5:23pm: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2919)
4/27/2010 5:23pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 4/28/2010: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
9/27/2010: Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7557-7558)
9/27/2010: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
9/27/2010: Cleared for White House.
9/28/2010: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
9/30/2010: Presented to President.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3808:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03808:@@@L&summ2=m&
H.R.3808
ALL ACTIONS:
10/14/2009: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
1/4/2010: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
4/27/2010 5:15pm: Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 4/27/2010 5:15pm: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2919-2920)
4/27/2010 5:15pm: DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3808.
4/27/2010 5:23pm: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2919)
4/27/2010 5:23pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 4/28/2010: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
9/27/2010: Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7557-7558)
9/27/2010: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
9/27/2010: Cleared for White House.
9/28/2010: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
9/30/2010: Presented to President.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h3808:
&
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03808:@@@L&summ2=m
H.R.3808
ALL ACTIONS:
10/14/2009: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
1/4/2010: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
4/27/2010 5:15pm: Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 4/27/2010 5:15pm: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2919-2920)
4/27/2010 5:15pm: DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3808.
4/27/2010 5:23pm: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2919)
4/27/2010 5:23pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 4/28/2010: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
9/27/2010: Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7557-7558)
9/27/2010: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
9/27/2010: Cleared for White House.
9/28/2010: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
9/30/2010: Presented to President.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.03808:
H.R.3808
ALL ACTIONS:
10/14/2009: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
1/4/2010: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy.
4/27/2010 5:15pm: Ms. Baldwin moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 4/27/2010 5:15pm: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2919-2920)
4/27/2010 5:15pm: DEBATE – The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3808.
4/27/2010 5:23pm: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H2919)
4/27/2010 5:23pm: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 4/28/2010: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
9/27/2010: Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7557-7558)
9/27/2010: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
9/27/2010: Cleared for White House.
9/28/2010: Message on Senate action sent to the House.
9/30/2010: Presented to President.
*Click on “(full text here)” in Dan’s main post. Now, click on the Full Text on THOMAS link on the left side of that page. Then click on # 4 on the next page; now click on Bill Summary & Status on the next page, and, finally, click on All Congressional Actions on the next page.
I guess the claims that they “fast tracked” or “rammed” it thru Congress must be false. Looks like a carefully considered bill to me, especially with all those unanimous votes! Then they tell us we have deadlock? What the heck are they talking about?
I think they should give Notaries a raise too, to go along with their new responsibility of Power of Attorney. Congress should be sensitive to that.
On the other hand, no matter how many times I read this tiny little bill, I can’t see any problem with it. I does state “lawful notarization”, so that means they haven’t given fraud the green light.
The issue of whether electronic signatures in general should be allowed has been going around since at least 1990.
To me this sounds like it’s turning into populism, but the main problem is homeowners may not be holding valid title, and mortgage bondholders are going to get screwed over any number of legal technicalities they never signed up for.
Gibbs is actually wrong with the pocket veto thing. The Senate is still in session. So Obama is actually veto-ing the bill not doing a pocket veto.
This is good news and I beleive only Obama’s second veto.
Islam will change
Here we go. FT just reported the headline “Obama sends forclosure bill back to Congress”.
So in front of millions of “readers”, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2009 has just transformed into The Foreclosure Bill.
I guess next we’ll have to see if Florida state law allows foreclosures on it’s residents in NYC because that’s where Jamie Dimon wants to present his evidence of notarized loan docs to a friendly local judge? Off hand, I’m not really sure what the purpose of this bill is.
But maybe that’s another state or federal bill still to come.
Read the Reuters article published on the morning of October 7. That should help you understand what unfolded.
Either of these article links work:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101007/pl_nm/us_usa_foreclosures_bill
or
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006
Beyond the basics outlined in the article, a simple review of activity at the Senate Judiciary Committee indicates that the Bill never came out of committee. Moreover, I have yet to find any reference to the Bill in the committee records since April 2010. It doesn’t appear that the Bill was ever brought up in any Judiciary meetings.
Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions have failed to explain what occurred after the September 23 executive business meeting of the committee. The Bill was not discussed in the minutes of that meeting.
Senator Leahy is the key to what unfolded. And he’s not talking…
Read the Reuters article published on the morning of October 7. That should help you understand what unfolded.
Either of these article links work:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101007/pl_nm/us_usa_foreclosures_bill
or
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955YX20101006
Beyond the basics outlined in the article, a simple review of activity at the Senate Judiciary Committee indicates that the Bill never came out of committee. Moreover, I have yet to find any reference to the Bill in the committee records since April 2010. It doesn’t appear that the Bill was ever brought up in any Judiciary meetings.
Senator Leahy and Senator Sessions have failed to explain what occurred after the September 23 executive business meeting of the committee. The Bill was not discussed in the minutes of that meeting.
Senator Leahy is the key to what unfolded. And he’s not talking…