Understanding California's 2023 Notary Public Handbook (Part 7)

This is Part 7 of a series where I am sharing my experience and notes from reading the the evaluation of the California Notary Public Handbook, a tool written to assist in the interpretation of the various Codes that impact the work of a notary public in California.

In Part 1, we examined notes in the categories of the timeline of the application, the locations in which a notary may practice, and the location of the relevant codification in the California Government code.

In Part 2, we looked at the section on Notary seals; including where to keep them, embosser-style seals, and exceptions to using a seal.

In Part 3, we touched on repercussions, identification, and the note on journal notes.

In Part 4, we examined our thoughts on the section of credible witnesses and determined we made some incorrect notes on the notes which were then adjusted.

In Part 5, we took an interim break where we had an inside look at the class and test experience, along with learning about the new data services website that I've been creating.

In Part 6, we looked at the journal entries section and the questions and comments I had in that regard.

Note 13: Responding to requests

A notary public must respond within 15 business days after the receipt of a written request from any member of the public for a copy of a transaction in the notary public's journal by supplying either a photostatic copy of a line item from the notary public's journal or an acknowledgement that no such line item exists.

When I first highlighted this, I was worried that it meant that I had to make a copy of an entire page and my concern was that there would be other people's data that could possibly be included and that really bothered me. However, two things assuaged that concern.

1. I have a note in the margin with the following, " Line item; not the whole page"
2. I have learned that there are single-entry-per-page journals that not only allow for complete privacy without depending on a piece of paper or other object blocking the info, but have space for detailed notes about the notarization. I am very, very intrigued by this and seriously considering that instead of the NNA hardcover journal that I purchased.

One thing about the journal that is somewhat stressing me out is this choice I have to make. The NNA journal had spaces for 488 notarizations. That is A LOT!!! If I realize that I want to include more details in my notarizations, I would have to keep a separate page or document with all of that info. Now, I might record that information in a digital format anyway, even if I do handwrite it out to begin with, but the point would be to have it attached to the record in case those details were needed later for some reason or another. The journal linked above has spaces for 120 separate signings (480 signatures) but because of the space and layout (4 signers per entry) I can image we'd go through these MUCH faster. It does appear that many of the advertised single-page journals are KDP in nature, it does mean that we could create our own and tweak what already exists to meet our needs.

There is one review, however that now has me running down a bit of a mental rabbit hole. They state that "yes, you CAN use this in California!" which, of course, makes me ask, wait a sec, why WOULDN'T we be able to use it in California?? They go on to talk about an option for multiple signatures for the same signer being a point of contention. The thing is, I don't understand the issue--"standard" journals are just lines for signing and it doesn't indicate that the same person needs to sign multiple times. HOWEVER, this confusion is likely a product of my inexperience.

Continuing on with my notes in the margins for this section, I have two bullet points. The first one: "What does a lawful request look like?" Since there is no mention of "lawful" request in the actual Handbook itself, I am assuming that I added that from a video I was watching where Michael Closen was presenting. The second bullet point is likely from that same video: Requests for access/copies are notarial acts and must be entered; whether you allow or deny, must be added. If I recall (not in the notes), he was also saying you must have a pretty solid reason for denying the information. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist; but if you deny the access; there should be some information as to why. At this point in my notary journey, I understand that my journal is a public record and the public can have access to it, once properly requested (in this case "in writing," is probably what was meant by the "lawful" comment). Since that requirement is only "in writing," an email is also an acceptable medium for a request to come across your desk.

------

This is the end of Part 7 of a multi-part series of articles on my notes and impressions of the California 2023 Notary Public Handbook. The previous posts on this topic can be accessed by clicking on the corresponding link below.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4
• Part 5, Interim
• Part 6

Part 8 should be available within the week.

-----

Disclosure: This post may contain affiliate links that--at no additional cost to you--I may earn a small commission. All opinions expressed here are my own.