One-Stop Shop? Court Finds No Violation Of California’s Notary Statute Limiting Fees Charged For “Taking An Acknowledgement” Where Additional Services Provided

by Miller Starr Regalia
Contact

Hutton v. Fidelity National Title Co., ___ Cal.App.4th ___ (Jan. 31, 2013) (See opinion, here.)

A California court has confirmed that notaries who provide services additional to notarizations may charge for such services without violating the fee limitations in Government Code § 8211.

The Allegations: Homeowner Brent Hutton (“Hutton” or “plaintiff”) sued his escrow holder (“Escrow”) for charging a “notary fee” in excess of the amount permitted by California Government Code § 8211 when he refinanced a loan. Section 8211 allows a notary to charge only $10 per signature for “taking an acknowledgement.” In the Hutton transaction, only two acknowledgements were taken, but Escrow charged $75 for “notary services” on the settlement statement. Hutton alleged that Escrow violated § 8211 by charging more than $20 for the two acknowledgements, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of California’s unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 17200 et seq.) and (2) unjust enrichment in a complaint styled as a statewide, multi-year class action that had not yet been certified.

Escrow filed a motion for summary judgment on two grounds: First, Escrow argued that § 8211 was not a cap on notary fees altogether but, instead, merely limited the amount that could be charged for acknowledgements. The Huttons’ notary performed additional services, including “traveling to location of signing, presenting multiple documents for signature, showing where to sign or initial each document, answering questions….” (Slip op. at 3.) Second, Escrow pointed out that the notary was an independent third party contractor, precluding liability by Escrow for any alleged violation.

The Court’s Holding and Analysis: The California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Escrow. The Court agreed with Escrow’s interpretation of the statute: While § 8211 places a limitation on the amount that can be charged for each acknowledgement, it is silent as to charges for other services provided by a notary. The Court of Appeals did not address the independent contractor liability issue because of its determination that there was no violation of § 8211 in the first place. (Slip op. at fn. 4.))

The Court engaged in a three-step analysis as to the propriety of summary judgment favoring Escrow: “(1) the meaning of section 8211, (2) the limited scope of plaintiff’s pleading, and (3) [Escrow] defendant’s evidentiary showing as the moving party successfully defeating the causes of action as pled.” (Slip op. at 10.) For the first step, the Court observed that § 8211 was plain on its face in specifying fee restrictions “only for certain types of services performed by a notary.” (Slip op. at 11.)  As a corollary, the statute does not regulate fees for services not identified in the statute. (Id., citing Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 50 Cal.3d 402, 412 [if language of a statute is clear, there is no room for interpretation; effect must be given to its plain meaning].)

Addressing the second step, it was apparent that Hutton’s sole basis for liability was the claim that Escrow violated § 8211 by overcharging him for notary services. (Slip op. at 13, citing County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. [(2006)] 137 Cal.App.4th [289], 332-333 [theories not pleaded by plaintiff need not be addressed in defendant’s [summary judgment] motion under Code Civ. Proc., § 437c].)

Hutton argued that even if Escrow did not violate § 8211, there were other potential theories of liability that Escrow’s motion failed to address. Nevertheless, the other “potential” theories were not pled, and plaintiff forfeited his right to amend his complaint by failing to seek leave to do so. (Slip op. at 9, 17, citations omitted.)  Escrow was, therefore, not required “to refute liability on some theoretical possibilities not included in the pleadings” in order to establish no triable issues of fact. (Slip op. at 17, citing Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1254; County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at 332.)

The Court’s final focus was Escrow’s factual evidence that showed a notary’s performance of the intrinsically notarial act (the taking of two acknowledgements) was merely one part of the overall signing services she provided to the Huttons. The notary attested that she was aware that only $10 could be charged per notarized signature, resulting in a reasonable inference that the fees in excess of $20 were attributable to the other services provided. “[B]ecause section 8211 only limited fees for the services specifically listed therein and did not prohibit remuneration for other services rendered, defendant’s evidentiary showing was sufficient to prima facie negate plaintiff’s claim that defendant allegedly violated the statute by charging $75.” (Slip op. at 14.) Having met its evidentiary burden, Escrow’s summary judgment was affirmed.

Comment: This case highlights interesting points on pleading and documenting settlement services:

  • The settlement statement listed a lump sum $75 fee for “notary services,” and plaintiff might have amended to plead § 17200 violation by “unfair” or “fraudulent” practices. A possible way to avoid such allegations might be to itemize the services being provided in addition to the acknowledgments, even though not expressly required by the statute.
  • It appears that certain activities may be charged for separate and apart from the acknowledgements, such as traveling to location of signing, presenting multiple documents for signature, showing where to sign or initial each document, and answering questions about the loan or settlement process. Notaries would be wise to state that they offer such services at the beginning of each signing.
  • As a pleading issue, the plaintiff lost in part because he raised alternative theories of potential liability in opposition to the Escrow’s summary judgment motion. The Court left open the possibility that the additional theories might have defeated summary judgment if plaintiff had obtained leave from the Court to amend his complaint.

Written by:

Miller Starr Regalia
Contact
more
less

Miller Starr Regalia on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.