YOu should actually read the bill. It’s like 200 words long. It says that a lawfully notarized paper in one state must be accepted as lawfully notarized in any state or federal court.
The purpose is to prevent frivolous claims against paperwork by litigants arguing that the paperwork has to be notarized in the state where the court resides.
It only effects the mortgage foreclosue issue in the sense that the large banks operate across state lines and have been using notaries in their corporate state; I can’t find evidence that those notaries have different rules, but I suppose that is possible, nobody has written about that.
But to the degree this is a “mortgage foreclosure bailout”, it is only extremely INDIRECTLY, not an intended result of the bill.
And this effects a lot more than just banks. EVERY litigant has to worry about having to get all court documents notarized in the state where the court is located now.
OK. Having said all that, I could argue that state’s rights should include the right to make their own rules about notary for their state courts, and to require all litigants in their courts to use notaries in their state. But does anybody believe Obama is making a “state’s rights” argument? And do we really want the litigants who court-shop to also be able to drive up the costs of litigation by forcing their targets to do all their paperwork in the state of their choosing?
“The purpose is to prevent frivolous claims against paperwork by litigants arguing that the paperwork has to be notarized in the state where the court resides.”
The court generally resides in the same state as the property.
It would be terrible for the laws of that state to apply in these cases. /s