A. The state ethics commission may revoke, suspend or impose a condition on a notarial officer for any act or omission that demonstrates that the individual lacks the honesty, integrity, competence or reliability to act as a notarial officer, including: (1) failure to comply with the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts; (2) a fraudulent, dishonest or deceitful misstatement or omission in the application for a commission as a notary public; (3) a conviction of the applicant or automatic notarial officer of any felony or a crime involving fraud, dishonesty or deceit during the preceding four years; (4) a finding against, or admission of liability by, the applicant or notarial officer in any legal proceeding or disciplinary action based on the applicant's or notarial officer's fraud, dishonesty or deceit; (5) failure by the notarial officer to discharge any duty required of a notarial officer, whether by the provisions of the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, rules of the secretary of state or any federal or state law; (6) violation by the notarial officer of an obligation required of a notarial officer, whether by the provisions of the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, rules of the secretary of state or any federal or state law; (7) use of false or misleading advertising or representation by the notary public representing that the notary has a duty, right or privilege that the notary does not have; (8) denial, refusal to renew, revocation, suspension or conditioning of a notary public commission in another state; (9) failure of the notary public to maintain an assurance as provided in Subsection D of Section 14-14A-20 NMSA 1978; or (10) if the individual ceases to be a resident of this state or ceases to be employed in this state. B. The secretary of state may deny or refuse to renew an applicant upon notice from the state ethics commission of adverse action upon an applicant or a notarial officer. C. The authority of the state ethics commission to deny, refuse to renew, suspend, revoke or impose conditions on a notarial officer does not prevent a person from seeking and obtaining other criminal or civil remedies provided by law. History: Laws 2021, ch. 21, § 22; 2023, ch. 110, § 20. The 2023 amendment, effective June 16, 2023, revised the grounds to deny, refuse to renew, revoke, suspend or condition the commission of a notarial officer; changed each occurrence of "notary public" to "notarial officer" throughout the section; in the section heading, deleted "notary public" and added "notarial officer"; in Subsection A, in the introductory clause, after "commission may", deleted "deny, refuse to renew", after "condition on a", deleted "notary public", in Paragraph A(2), after "notary public", deleted "submitted to the state ethics commission", in Paragraph A(3), deleted "notary public" and added "automatic notarial officer", after "deceit during the", deleted "term of the notary public's commission or during the five years immediately preceding such term" and added "preceding four years"; added a new Paragraph A(6) and redesignated former Paragraph A(6) as Paragraph A(7), deleted former Paragraph A(7), and in Paragraph A(9), after "Section", deleted "20 of the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts" and added "14-14A-20 NMSA 1978"; and in Subsection B, after "action upon", added "an applicant or". Applicability. — Laws 2021, ch. 21, § 37 provided that the provisions of Laws 2021, ch. 21 apply to notarial acts performed in this state on and after January 1, 2022. Notary Public Act (repealed) did not provide the exclusive remedy for a claim against a notary public. — Where plaintiff, as the personal representative of decedent's estate, filed a complaint for damages for fraud against defendant, a notary public, alleging that defendant notarized a false affidavit, and where defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Notary Public Act, 14-12-1 to 14-12-26 NMSA 1978 (repealed), required that a claim for misconduct be against the notary public's official bond, and where the district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that a complaint alleging misconduct by a notary public is limited by the Notary Public Act, the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, because the Notary Public Act, 14-12A-9(B) NMSA 1978 (repealed), provided a remedy in the form of a civil action on the notary public's ten-thousand dollar surety bond, but did not provide the exclusive remedy; a plaintiff alleging fraud may recover such damages as are the direct and natural consequences of the reliance on a fraudulent representation. Romero v. Tafoya , 2023-NMCA-024.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.