Many documents used in the industry or required by law require authorization by a family member or other legally authorized person. Typically a document of this type provides for a Notary to confirm the identification of the individual that is signing and that the document was signed in front of the Notary. It has been the author’s experience that sometime when a Notarization is required shortcuts are taken and the requirements are not followed. Unfortunately, this practice can sometimes lead to problems and even liability.

  In the case of Angiolillo v. Conrad, 2012 WL 2899128 (Conn.Super) an employee of a funeral home was sued for notarizing the signature of the owner of the funeral home who signed an interment order for cremated remains with the name of a family member, who was not present, as a courtesy to the family. The facts are detailed but it turned out that the family member for whom the owner signed, in fact, did not have any ownership interest in the space and when the true owner discovered there was an interment of the cremated remains on his grandmother’s space, he objected and the cremated remains were disinterred and buried elsewhere.

  Subsequently, the space owner sued the funeral home, the owners of the funeral home and some of the family members involved for negligence, emotional distress and other claims (“prior action”). Conrad was not specifically named in that case other than as John Doe One and was never personally served. After many motions were filed in the prior action the case was tried against the funeral home before a jury that held in favor of the space owner.

  When the space owner learned the identity of the employee there was an attempt to add him to the prior case with an amended complaint but according to this Court the employee was not served with the amended complaint. The employee’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss in the prior action that was granted by that Court. The space owner appealed that order. The employee’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis the statute of limitations applied and the amended complaint was not properly or timely filed. The issue before this Court was whether the space owner’s attorney had the right to avoid the imposition of the statute of limitations on technical grounds. This Court held that the space owner’s attorney had not complied with the technical requirements so the statute of limitations did apply. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss was granted.

  The prior action and this case illustrate three serious procedural problems that occurred. First, the funeral director owner should not have relied on the word of family members regarding the ownership of the space. Second, the funeral director owner should not have signed a document for another person that was not physically present. Third, the employee should not have notarized a signature for a person that was not present, particularly when he knew the funeral home owner was the actual signing party.

  Whenever a document that contains a notarization requirement has to be signed it is mandatory that the Notary comply with the requirements of the applicable law. The author is not aware of any state law dealing with requirements for notarization that does not provide that the Notary confirms the identification of the person signing and actually witness the signing of that document by the person. Wherever a document is signed it is important that these legal requirements are followed. The Angiolillo case illustrates what can result if shortcuts are taken or someone relies on the word of someone else rather than on their own observations.