Wills, Trusts and Notarization in Today's World
The pandemic has led many, including New York, temporarily to authorize both remote notarization and remote execution of documents requiring witnesses.
May 03, 2021 at 11:45 AM
10 minute read
To state the obvious, the coronavirus pandemic has changed many aspects of our lives. Part of that change is a heightened awareness of the fragility of life and the need to plan for the inevitability of death. The circumstances that have led so many to face the need to write or revise existing wills, trusts, and other documents related to the end of life have greatly complicated the creation of those documents. For example, a will execution ceremony under New York law requires the testator and the witnesses to be in each other's physical presence, and notarization of the signatures on a trust document requires the notary to see the creator and the trustee sign. Or at least that was the case before the rise of electronic wills with remote witnessing and remote notarization. Although only a handful of jurisdictions have enacted statutory rules for either or both, the pandemic has led many others, including New York, temporarily to authorize both remote notarization and remote execution of documents requiring witnesses.
In New York, at least, such measures have been routinely extended since they were first put into place in March 2020 by Executive Order 202.14. It is expected that the day will come when these measures will no longer be necessary, but perhaps, unexpectedly, their continuation might be welcome. The convenience of executing documents without leaving home may be too useful to give up.
A year into the pandemic, the New York procedures for will execution are familiar and no doubt widely used. Audio-visual technology may be used to perform the act of witnessing required under EPTL 3-2.1 and EPTL 7-1.17 governing witnessing of a lifetime trust as well as witnessing requirements for health care proxies and statutory gift riders to powers of attorneys under the following conditions:
|- The person requesting that his or her signature be witnessed, if not personally known to the witness(es), must present valid photo ID during the video conference, not merely transmit it prior to or after;
- The video conference must allow for direct interaction between the person and the witness(es), and the supervising attorney, if there is one. In other words, no pre-recorded videos of the person signing;
- The witnesses must receive a legible copy of the signature page(s), which may be transmitted via fax or electronic means, on the same date that the pages are signed by the person;
- The witness(es) may sign the transmitted copy of the signature page(s) and transmit the same back to the person; and
- The witness(es) may repeat the witnessing of the original signature page(s) as of the date of execution provided the witness(es) receive such original signature pages together with the electronically witnessed copies within 30 days after the date of execution.
This procedure substitutes electronic for physical presence and does not require that anyone, other than the testator, have physical contact with the original will. It also requires the electronic transmission to the witnesses of only the signature page for them to sign, and allows, but does not require, the witnesses to affix their signatures to the original signature page. Executing wills and trusts differs from that authorized for remote notarization. On the one hand, Executive Order 202.7 requires the electronic transmission to the notary of the entire document to be notarized and also requires that the person signing the document affirmatively represents that he or she is physically situated in the state of New York. On the other hand, remote witnessing of a will does not require the testator to be physically located in New York.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A Sea Change': NY Equal Rights Measure May Prompt Flurry of Lawsuits if Approved by Voters
Walking the AI Tightrope: Communicating Innovation Without Undermining Core Values
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250