The Jurat Requested by Mail Without the Signer Present
A small property-management company emails Rafael, a commissioned Illinois notary, asking him to notarize an affidavit for a tenant dispute. The company attaches a signed affidavit, already signed by the tenant, and asks Rafael to 'stamp it as a jurat and mail it back.' The tenant is not present and Rafael has never met her. The company says this is routine and that the tenant 'already agreed to it by phone.' Rafael is also asked, in the same email, to fill in the date of notarization as last Friday, because that is when the tenant signed. Rafael has a blank jurat form and could complete it in five minutes. The company offers to pay a $40 'rush fee' directly to Rafael.
1. Can Rafael complete the jurat as requested? Identify every problem with the request.
Read the worked answer
No. At least four distinct problems exist:
No personal appearance. A jurat requires the signer to appear personally before the notary, swear or affirm the truth of the contents, and sign in the notary's presence. Rafael has not met the tenant and she is not before him.
Administration of an oath. A jurat certifies that an oath or affirmation was administered. Rafael cannot administer an oath to an absent person by phone relay through a third party.
Backdating. Dating the certificate last Friday would be a false statement about when the act occurred. The notary must record the actual date of the notarial act.
The fee. A notary may charge the statutory fee for a notarial act, but accepting a direct 'rush fee' from an interested party for expedited handling invites a charge of misconduct and creates an appearance of impropriety.
2. What should Rafael do, and how should he explain it to the company?
Read the worked answer
Rafael should decline the request as framed. He should explain that a jurat requires the tenant to appear before him in person, sign in his presence, and take an oath, and that he cannot certify to events that did not happen or date a certificate other than the actual date.
He can offer a lawful path: the tenant may appear before Rafael (in person) or before another commissioned notary near her, complete the oath, and sign in that notary's presence. He should not accept the rush fee. If the company wants a document notarized without personal appearance, Rafael should make clear that Illinois does not permit remote notarization of this kind on these facts.
3. Suppose Rafael completes the jurat anyway and mails it back. What are the likely consequences?
Read the worked answer
The certificate would be false on its face in at least two respects - it would state that the tenant appeared and swore when she did not, and it would bear a date other than the date of the act. A false certificate is official misconduct and exposes Rafael to discipline, including suspension or revocation of his commission, and to civil liability to anyone harmed by reliance on the affidavit.
The tenant or the opposing party in the dispute could challenge the affidavit, and the false date would be easy to expose through the email trail. The $40 payment would look like a quid pro quo, aggravating the misconduct finding. This is precisely the fact pattern the exam uses to test whether a candidate understands that a jurat is not a rubber stamp.