Reword this Legal Paragraph for me please!

Okay, so I think I get the general gist of the following paragraph, copied out of “Self-Help Law Kit: How to Make a North Carolina Will With Forms.”

Is there a way to make this a little bit more clear? It seems to be just guaranteeing that the Notary Public knows that the person signing this document is indeed who he/she says he/she is and that everything stated above is true. How can I reword this so that it still has the same legal meaning without sounding like Yoda? Or is this how legal documents all go?

PS - I really can’t recommend this book lowly enough. What with the wonderful grammatical errors, misspellings, doubling of words, amazing sentence structures per the above… wonderful. They actually recommend that you photocopy the forms and just fill in the blanks.

PPS - Writing out your parent’s will is depressing.

SIGNATURE____________________________________
SIGNATURE____________________________________
SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS ____ DAY OF , 2004.
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
______________
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES________________________
<PLACE FOR NOTARY SEAL>

Wills may require the additional language, however. For something as potentially irksome as a mis-drafted will spend a couple hundred bucks on an attorney and get it done right. Especially if you detest your source material for the do it yourself kit. They might be missing something important.

What Matchka said, Wills are far too important to be done out of a self-help book. A bit of money spent on a lawyer now should ensure that you don’t have all sorts of nasty complications later.

Well, the thing is that my parent’s already have a will drawn up for a different state. They just have to rewrite these main things so that they fit in accordance with North Carolina’s laws. For the most part, the spelling errors are stupid (like hem/her instead of him/her, or doubling of words) and easily correctable. That particular sentence just got me as I was reading it because it didn’t seem to follow any kind of structure at all. I think they’re planning on having a lawyer read over all this when it’s done. Thanks for the advice!

How bout this?

**I know these folks. Their names are (name). They signed this document on (date).

Signature. Date.**

Seriously, the law can be pretty forgiving as far as some language is concerned. In other instances, however, the absence of “magic words” can be fatal.

I know nothing about N. Car. law, and little about wills. But I’m not sure too much specific mumbo jumbo is required in your situation.

The most common potential problem with wills is if someone challenges it. If you are an only child, and your parents are leaving everything to you, or splitting it evenly between siblings, and they don’t have any other spouses/children hidden away anywhere, it isn’t all that big of a deal. Hell, that’s the same way the estate would be distributed if they died intestate. Moreover, the law can be pretty forgiving if it is clear what they intended to do, and if they signed it in the presence of witnesses and a notary.

However, if they have a large and complicated estate, if there is a history of serious family strife, or if they are doing something funky like leaving everything to their cats and disinheriting your brother, they will definitely want to pay a lawyer a couple hundred dollars, as well as appointing a thick-skinned executor.

I second the advice given by others to spend the money on a lawyer. Nevertheless, here is a rewording:

Today ______________ and __________ signed this document in my presence. They told me that they signed it and swore that the statements are true.

Date:


Notary Public
My Commission Expires: _________

An observation: The quoted language is the sort of stuff that results from lawyers copying language from other lawyers without thinking and trying to cover every possible instance when many are impossible.

The language tries to do three things at once, and in so doing, probably fails at most of them. First, it is an witness statement. The notary is witnessing the signature. Ok. In some states, a will requires people to witness the signature (usually two witnesses). The notary can be a witness, but her role as a notary is superfluous and confusing. Second, it is an acknowledgement. An acknowledgement occurs when someone has already signed a document and then takes it in front of a notary to verify the signature. The notary verifies the person’s identity, and indicates that on the document. I do not know of any states that require both witnesses and acknowledgement (they both serve the same purpose–to make sure that the will is not a forgery).

Third, it is a sworn statement. This is just bizarre. What if the dead person has lied in the will? Not really a relevant issue. You can’t prosecute a dead person for perjury. If the will contains false statements, it may be invalid under very limited circumstances, but how does having the maker swear to them change anything? Again, this is likely to confuse the matter and result in frivolous litigation down the road.
I see that in North Carolina, no notary is required. Instead, the will must either be signed in front of two witnesses or acknowledged before two witnesses. Case in point.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/statutes/generalstatutes/html/bychapter/chapter_31.html

I am a legal assistant for a workers’ compensation attorney in Florida. That said…the following is the standard Notary paragraph we use in all of our workers’ compensation pleadings. I think the wording is actually quite clear in your OP…here’s what our blurb usually says…

Before me, the undersigned authority authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgements personally appeared NAME who (is personally known to me) (was identified by ___________ driver license or STATE ID) on this ____ day of ______, 200_ who upon being duly sworn (OR who has/has not taken an oath), certifies that the information furnished by HIM/HER as incorporated in the foregoing DOCUMENT NAME is true and correct and that HE/SHE (has read the DOCUMENT NAME) (has had the DOCUMENT NAME read to HIM/HER) and believes DOCUMENT NAME to be in HIS/HER best interest.

Good luck and I hope you find the information you need.

“I see that in North Carolina, no notary is required.”

Damn slow computer. Sorry my post wasn’t of assistance. The post from Gfactor was a good one though.

Don’t do a do-it-yourself will. Holographic wills are a bitch to execute in some states (if your state actually recognizes them to begin with).

If you honestly can’t afford to have a will drawn up (or a codicil in your case – and lemme tellya most lawyers don’t like to do more than one or two codicils, after that things get hairy and they want to rewrite the whole thing so you may run into this), pull out the yellow pages and make a few calls to some law offices. I have known many a lawyer who will do a will for free because they can’t stand to see someone running around without one because they know the trouble it causes if you die without one.

I knew one lawyer who was willing to do a will for anyone for free, however he knew that people would hear the word “free” and think that he wasn’t doing a good job. So he would charge $100 to make them feel like he was doing a “better” job than he would do if he did it free of charge.

Maybe, but there’s a reason for it. When you “make up” your own wording for a legal document, you have no way of knowing how a court may decide to interpret it, if there’s any question about its meaning. When you see stock wording being used over and over again, like that notary paragraph, it’s because that wording has been consistently interpreted by the courts. The meaning is legally “settled,” so you’re not taking any chances about whether it will withstand scrutiny.

The language in your will doesn’t have to reflect your own adorable, quirky personality. What it has to do is stand up to any legal challenge. It has to make your intentions crystal clear. It has to satisfy the requirements of probate. There’s no percentage in trying to avoid sounding like Yoda. Just copy the standard, tried-and-true phrasing.

Yeah, but guess what happens when your will is offered for probate? If it’s not notarized, it can’t be accepted for probate until the witnesses can be found, and be brought before the probate court to swear that they saw you sign the will. Needless to say, this can be a bit of a problem when witnesses have moved far away, or have died.

A properly notarized will, on the other hand, can be accepted for probate immediately, whether the witnesses can still be found or not. It’s referred to, IIRC, as being “self-executing.”

Of course, it has to be properly notarized, so don’t go trying to reword the notarization paragraph - you might end up just invalidating it. The rewording that Gfactor suggests, for example, contains an ambiguity: did the notary actually witness the person signing it, or did the person just tell the notary that he signed it? That’s precisely the kind of vagueness that can invalidate the notarization, and create all sorts of problems.

As someone who has actually litigated will contests, I can tell you two things:

  1. There are no reported cases on sufficiency of a notarization paragraph. This is the same argument that is always kicked around by lazy lawyers who are too afraid of plain English to let go of their afforesaids and wherefores. They always say, “this language has been tested.” And they are always unable to identify anyplace where it has been tested. As I pointed out, the original language was equally “ambiguous.” I don’t find the language, “Today ______________ and __________ signed this document in my presence.” To be ambiguous at all it says the guy signed this in front of me. Where is the ambiguity?

  2. I need to correct a serious misunderstanding about probate law. Apparently, Early believes that in every case, one “offers” a Will for probate, and must then prove that the signatures are valid. Wrong.

One offers a Will for Probate. Notices are sent to interested parties. The parties are given the opportunity to object. Assuming nobody objects, the Will is accepted. The only time that witnesses will be required is if there is an objection.

Objections are infrequent. Why? Because will contests are expensive, and the estate usually picks up the tab for the defense, which reduces the pot for everyone.

And a self-proving provision is not iron-clad. In North Carolina, the self-proving provision is particularly weak. Here comes a long quote:

The last paragraph explains the effect of a self-proving provision. It shall be accepted by the court as if it had been taken before the court. In other words, Early is right, you don’t have to bring the witnesses in live. But Early seems to be assuming that the court has to believe the witnesses. The court does not. That means you still may have to call witnesses in a will contest. More important, the self-proving provision is only helpful in practice if the objection is forgery. The single sentence about the testator being of sound mind, etc. will not withstand a challenge on those grounds. The challenger will have the initial burden of proof, and will have come forth with persuasive evidence that the testator was not of sound mind. By the time the self-proved provision comes into play, it will not suffice for an absent witness to be quoted as saying, “he looked ok to me.”

Compare [URL=http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/epic0037.htm]Michigan’sURL] provision. In Michigan a self-proved will limits the issues that can be raised in a will contest by creating a conclusive presumption that the signature requirements have been met. In Michigan, the court must believe the witnesses, at least about the formalities of executing the will.

Are self-proved provisions usesless? No. Are they helpful? Seldom. But if it doesn’t cost anymore to do it, then why not do it? But . . .

  1. Again, foolish consistencies . . . Early seems to believe that the language in the OP is self-proving, but look at the statute that I quoted. It doesn’t look anything like that. And yet I’m sure there are lawyers out there who think that executing the will in front of a notary and using the same junk notarial paragraph will do the job. That’s right, because it has been tested. Uh huh . . .

  2. Again, get a lawyer in your home state who does wills all the time. If the lawyer screws it up, at least you have a shot at a malpractice case. And a good estate planning lawyer will use the statutory language because the lawyer will be aware of legislation affecting wills in that state.

If you want to do a self-proving will, do it. But don’t do it to avoid the need of bringing witnesses with you to probate

But don’t believe the hype about impenetrable legal language being “tested.” It hasn’t been.

Good luck

The Virginia statute also contains the language about the testator “being of sound and disposing mind and memory.” Guess what? Some notaries are now refusing to sign off on that, since they’re not qualified to judge whether someone is of “sound mind.” According to one notary I encountered, there was a case (somewhere, sometime, no cite, of course!) in which a notary was dragged into court and grilled about having signed such a statement, so now they’re all gun-shy.

Ultimately, of course, Gfactor’s parting advice ("…get a lawyer in your home state who does wills all the time…") is the right advice. Getting a simple will drawn up shouldn’t cost much, and while a complicated will might be more expensive, if you’re trying to do something fancy, your chances of getting it right on your own are pretty slim.

Haha. Too funny. Yes. Eventually the professional witnesses are called upon to explain what they meant and the boilerplate gets scary.

I once litigated a will contest where the drafter of the will would not give me an opinion about the testator’s state of mind. Almost took his deposition. The lawyer challenging the will was totally uncooperative. He had medical records that he claimed proved the testator was nuts, but would not produce them. When I finally got them ($30K in fees later), I found out he was right, but the records also proved that she was nuts when she wrote the previous will that benefitted his client. Aaaaaaaagh!!! By the time we got done screwing around, the entire estate was spent on legal fees.

I also discovered, when I got a transcript of a hearing (again challenger guy would not produce it) that much of this had been discussed on the record in front of the judge hearing the will contest. Challenger guy had lied under oath about this fact, and had a young associate do the same. I still don’t talk to the guy.

Shades of Jarndice v. Jarndice!

Indeed. Fueled by the intense hatred between competing heirs; a common phenomenon. I finally brokered a settlement that involved waiving a bunch of fees. It would have been more palatable if I hadn’t been telling the guy to settle for months because the fees were getting too high (mainly the result of a do-nothing judge). In the end, I still had to threaten to withdraw just to get the guy to settle. But it was nuts. He hated the other heir so intensely that he was willing to squander the entire estate on legal fees, just to make sure she didn’t get a penny. Ugly.