The 2 A.M. Remote Closing
Renée holds a Louisiana notary commission and is registered for remote online notarization. At 2:00 a.m. she logs into a platform to notarize a Louisiana act of sale for a seller located in California. The platform's knowledge-based authentication fails twice because the seller mistypes a former address. Renée has known the seller for 15 years through her church and can see her on video. She asks the seller to hold her driver's license to the camera, takes a screenshot, and proceeds. The platform records the session, but its default retention is 14 days, after which recordings are deleted. Renée's journal entry lists the seller's name and the date but no address, no identification method, and no fee. Her electronic seal is a JPEG image she pastes into the document. The seller later disputes the sale.
1. Identify the RON compliance problems in this session.
Read the worked answer
Several problems stand out. First, identity proofing was not completed through an approved method. Knowledge-based authentication failed twice, and holding an ID to a camera with a screenshot is not the same as credential analysis and identity proofing under the applicable RON rules. Personal knowledge may be an approved alternative in some circumstances, but Renée did not document it as the method and did not show that the platform captured it properly.
Second, the recording retention is inadequate. A vendor default that deletes the recording after 14 days does not satisfy the notary's obligation to preserve the remote notarization record for the period required by the Secretary of State's rules. Renée cannot rely on the platform's default; she must ensure retention.
Third, the journal is incomplete. It lacks the signer's address, the identification method, and the fee, all of which are part of a proper RON journal entry. Fourth, the electronic seal is not applied in a tamper-evident, uniquely linked manner simply by pasting a JPEG. The seal must be applied through the system so that the document and seal are tied together.
2. Could Renée rely on personal knowledge when KBA failed? What should she have done differently in the session?
Read the worked answer
Personal knowledge is not automatically disqualifying, but it must fit within the authorized identity-proofing methods and must be documented. If the RON rules allow personal knowledge as an alternative, Renée should have selected that method in the platform, recorded how she knows the signer and for how long, and captured the basis for her conclusion. She should not have silently converted a failed KBA into a screenshot of an ID.
A better approach would have been to stop the session when KBA failed twice, verify whether the platform offered another approved method, and use it if available. If no compliant method was available, she should have rescheduled rather than proceed at 2:00 a.m. under pressure. She also should have confirmed that the recording would be retained under her control, not deleted by the vendor, and that the journal would capture all required fields.
The fact that the signer is a fellow church member is not a substitute for the rule; it is at most a fact to be documented if personal knowledge is an authorized method.
3. What records must Renée maintain, and what should she do now that the sale is disputed?
Read the worked answer
She must maintain the remote session recording for the required retention period, a journal with the date and time, the type of notarial act, the signer's name and address, the identification method and result, the fee charged, and any other information the Secretary of State's rules require. She should also preserve the electronic document and evidence of the seal application.
Now she should immediately preserve whatever remains: the recording if it has not yet been deleted, the platform logs, her notes, and the document. She may correct an incomplete journal entry with a dated notation explaining the omission, but she must not create false contemporaneous entries or backdate the record. If the recording has already been deleted, she should document that fact and the vendor's retention settings.
She should also consult counsel and consider self-reporting to the Secretary of State if the rules require it. The dispute does not excuse her from preserving evidence; destroying or altering records after a dispute arises would compound the problem.