April 2, Old Stamp, New Name

The act is almost certainly invalid, for two independent reasons, and the date entry is a separate and more serious problem.

Reason 1 - no commission in force. A Montana commission runs a fixed term (four years), and the authority to act ends with it. An act performed after expiration is not a valid notarial act; the notary's long history and the client's long relationship are irrelevant to that question. Renewal does not reach backward.

Reason 2 - wrong stamp. The impression must identify the notary as commissioned. A stamp bearing a former name and former commission number does not identify the person who is (or was) commissioned to perform the act.

The date entry is not a technicality. The certificate date must be the date the notarial act was performed. Writing an earlier date to make a post-expiration act look timely is a false statement in an official certificate - exactly the conduct that supports denial of a new commission and, depending on the facts, referral for criminal review. It also silently misleads the recorder and everyone who later relies on the trust amendment.

The correct course was to decline the April 2 request, explain that her authority had lapsed, and have the client use a currently commissioned notary.

The name change and the move are not optional housekeeping. A commission is issued to a specific person, under a specific name, and identifies where that person may be reached. When either changes, the notary must notify the Secretary of State and update the commission record on the schedule the application and commission rules require, and must obtain a new stamp reflecting the commissioned name, the title of office, the state, and the correct commission number and expiration date.

Why the old stamp matters beyond this file:

• Every impression she made in January through April carries identifying information that does not match her commission. Each of those acts may be challenged on the same ground the trust amendment now faces.
• It signals a record problem, not just a stamp problem. A notary who did not think to update the commission record probably also did not journal these acts consistently, which makes reconstructing the damage harder.
• The correction runs forward, not backward. She cannot retroactively repair prior certificates; the remedy for the affected clients is re-notarization by a properly commissioned notary.
• Disclose accurately. When she applies under her married name and new address, the application should be truthful and complete; concealing the lapse or the misdated certificate compounds the original error.

Until a new commission is actually issued - not merely applied for, and not merely paid for - Renee has no authority to perform any notarial act. Application is not commissioning.

How to handle it:

1. Declare the gap immediately. Tell the title company today, in writing if possible, that her commission lapsed and that she cannot notarize the deeds. Silence here is the worst option: it invites 40 defective instruments into the recording stream.
2. Do not touch the deeds. Notarizing with the expired commission number, or with the old stamp, converts a scheduling problem into 40 potential fraud claims.
3. The supervisor's job is to reassign the closings to a currently commissioned notary, verify that notary's commission and stamp before the first signing, and confirm the identity and journal practices are compliant. A title operation should be checking commission status of every signing agent on a schedule, not discovering expiration after the fact.
4. Triage the existing file. Identify every act Renee performed while uncommissioned, notify the affected parties, and arrange re-notarization. Self-reporting the lapse to the Secretary of State is far better than waiting for a recorder or a lender to find it.
5. Fix the process once recommissioned: new stamp, renewed oath and bond, calendar reminders 90/60/30 days out, and a rule that signings stop the day the commission expires.