SESSION OF 2021
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 106
As Amended by House Committee on Judiciary

Brief*
SB 106, as amended, would would enact the Revised
Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (RULONA) and repeal the
Uniform Law on Notarial Acts (ULONA), as well as other
current laws regarding notaries. Throughout RULONA, some
provisions from ULONA and other current law are continued,
reorganized, or updated without substantive changes. The bill
also would update references to ULONA in other areas of
statute. This brief summarizes the RULONA structure and
notes provisions containing substantive changes or additions
to ULONA and other current law provisions.
Except as noted below, all sections of the bill would take
effect January 1, 2022.

Definitions (Section 2)
RULONA would continue definitions from current law,
modifying the definitions of “acknowledgment,” “notarial act,”
and “verification on oath or affirmation.”
RULONA would add definitions of “electronic,”
“electronic signature,” “notary public,” “official stamp,”
“person,” “record,” “sign,” “signature,” “stamping device,” and
“state.”


____________________
*Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research
Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental
note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at
http://www.kslegislature.org
Date of Applicability (Section 3)
RULONA would state it would apply to a notarial act
performed on or after January 1, 2022.

Authority to Perform Notarial Act (Section 4)
RULONA would draw most of the language of this
section from current law and add a provision allowing a
notarial officer to certify that a tangible copy of an electronic
record is an accurate copy of the electronic copy.

Requirements for Certain Notarial Acts (Section 5)
RULONA would continue these provisions from ULONA
in a substantially similar form.

Personal Appearance Required (Section 6)
RULONA would require, if a notarial act relates to a
statement made in or a signature executed on a record, the
individual making the statement or executing the signature to
appear personally before the notarial officer.

Identification of Individual (Section 7)
RULONA would continue these provisions from ULONA,
adding a “dealings sufficient to provide reasonable certainty”
standard to the “personally known” qualification and providing
additional detail regarding the identification documents or
verification or affirmation of a credible witness that may be
used to identify an individual. RULONA would allow a notarial
officer to require an individual to provide additional
information or identification credentials necessary to assure
the officer of the individual’s identity.


2- 106
Authority to Refuse to Perform Notarial Act (Section 8)
RULONA would allow a notarial officer to refuse to
perform a notarial act if the officer is not satisfied that the
individual executing the record is competent or has capacity
to execute the record, or that the individual’s signature is
knowingly and voluntarily made. A notarial officer could refuse
to perform a notarial act unless refusal is prohibited by
Kansas law or federal law.

Signature if Individual is Unable to Sign (Section 9)
RULONA would provide, if an individual is physically
unable to sign a record, the individual may direct another
individual, other than the notarial officer, to sign the
individual’s name on the record, with specified language to be
added by the notarial officer in such cases.

Notarial Act in Kansas (Section 10)
RULONA would continue these provisions from ULONA
in a substantially similar form and would add a provision
stating the signature and title of any of the officers specifically
listed in the section would conclusively establish the authority
of the officer to perform the notarial act.

Notarial Act in Another State (Section 11)
RULONA would continue these provisions from ULONA
in a substantially similar form and would add a provision
stating the signature and title of any of the officers specifically
listed in the section would conclusively establish the authority
of the officer to perform the notarial act.


3- 106
Notarial Act under Authority of Federally Recognized
Indian Tribe (Section 12)
RULONA would provide that a notarial act performed by
certain specified individuals, under the authority and in the
jurisdiction of a federally recognized Indian tribe, has the
same effect under Kansas law as if performed by a Kansas
notarial officer. The signature and title of such individual
would be prima facie evidence that the signature is genuine
and the individual holds the designated title. The signature
and title of a tribal notary public, judge, clerk, or deputy clerk
of a court would conclusively establish the authority of the
officer to perform the notarial act.

Notarial Act under Federal Authority (Section 13)
RULONA would continue these provisions from ULONA
in a substantially similar form, consolidating them from two
ULONA sections and rewording language regarding
individuals in military service and individuals designated
notarizing officers by the U.S. Department of State for
performing notarial acts overseas.

Foreign Notarial Act (Section 14)
RULONA would continue this section from ULONA but
would reorganize its provisions, remove a list of specific
persons who could perform a notarial act in a foreign nation,
and clarify a provision regarding apostilles.

Notarial Act Performed for Remotely Located Individual
(Section 15)
RULONA would allow a remotely located individual,
defined as an individual who is not in the physical presence of
the notary public who performs a notarial act, to comply with
the personal appearance requirement of Section 6 by using
communication technology to appear before a notary public.
4- 106
 A notary public in Kansas could perform a notarial act
using communication technology for a remotely located
individual if:
● The notary public has personal knowledge of the
identity of the individual, has satisfactory evidence
of the identity of the remotely located individual by
oath or affirmation from a credible witness
appearing before the notary public, or has obtained
satisfactory evidence of the identity of the remotely
located individual by using at least two different
types of identity proofing;
● The notary public is able reasonably to confirm that
a record before the notary public is the same
record in which the remotely located individual
made a statement or on which the individual
executed a signature;
● The notary public, or a person acting on behalf of
the notary public, creates an audio-visual recording
of the performance of the notarial act; and
● For a remotely located individual located outside
the United States, the record has a specified
connection with the United States, and the act
would not be prohibited by the foreign state in
which the individual is located.
The bill would require the certificate for a remotely
performed notarial act indicate the act was performed using
communication technology and would specify how short-form
certificates would be sufficient.
The bill would require retention of an audio-visual
recording created under this section for ten years, unless a
different period is required by rules and regulations.
The bill would provide requirements before a notary
public performs an initial remote notarial act, including

5- 106
notification to the Secretary of State, identification of the
technology to be used, and evidence of completion of the
course of study and passing of the examination required by
Section 23. If the technology and identity proofing complies
with any standards established by the Secretary of State in
rules and regulations, the Secretary of State would have to
approve the technology and identity proofing. The bill would
require the notary public to include a fee set by the Secretary
of State, not to exceed $25, with the notification, and the
Secretary of State would remit these fees to the State
Treasurer to deposit in the State Treasury to the credit of the
Information and Services Fee Fund.
For purposes of this section, in addition to the definition
of “remotely located individual,” the bill also would define
“communication technology,” “foreign state,” “identity
proofing,” and “outside the United States.”

Certificate of Notarial Act (Section 16)
RULONA would continue provisions from ULONA and
other current law regarding a certificate of notarial act, with
the following additions:
● RULONA would clarify the certificate must be
executed contemporaneously with the performance
of the notarial act and be signed by the notary
public in the same manner as on file with the
Secretary of State, would make use of the official
stamp on the certificate mandatory, and would
provide for use of an official stamp for certification
of electronic records; and
● RULONA also would prohibit a notarial officer from
affixing the officer’s signature to, or logically
associate it with, a certificate until the notarial act
has been performed, and would specify
requirements for attaching, affixing, or associating
a certificate with tangible and electronic records,

6- 106
 including compliance with any rules and
regulations adopted by the Secretary of State.
Short-Form Certificates (Section 17)
RULONA would replace ULONA’s statutory short-form
certificates with a provision requiring the Secretary of State to
adopt rules and regulations providing short-form certificates
of notarial acts that are sufficient for the purposes indicated, if
completed with the information required by Section 16.
This section would be effective upon publication in the
Kansas Register.

Official Stamp (Section 18)
RULONA would continue this provision from current law,
modifying it to focus on stamps instead of seals and to
simplify and clarify its language.

Stamping Device (Section 19)
RULONA would state a notary public is responsible for
the security of the notary public’s stamping device and shall
not allow another individual to use the device to perform a
notarial act. This section would set forth required actions for
disabling or rendering the stamping device unusable upon
commission resignation, revocation, or expiration; stamp
expiration; or the death or incompetency of the notary public.
If the stamping device is lost or stolen, this section would
require, upon discovery, the notary public or notary public’s
personal representative or guardian to promptly notify the
Secretary of State.


7- 106
Journal (Section 20)
RULONA would require a notary public to maintain a
single journal in a tangible medium, or one or more journals in
an electronic format, in which the notary public chronicles all
acts the notary public performs, and would require the notary
public retain this journal for ten years after the performance of
the last notarial act chronicled in the journal. The bill would
provide additional specific requirements for the creation and
maintenance of the journal, as well as for the timing and
contents of entries in the journal.
If a journal is lost or stolen, the notary public would be
required, upon discovery, to promptly notify the Secretary of
State.
Upon resignation, revocation, or suspension of a
commission, the notary public would be required to retain the
journal for the required ten-year period and inform the
Secretary of State of the location of the journal. Alternatively,
the notary public could transmit the journal to a repository
approved by the Secretary of State.
Upon death or incompetency of a notary public, the
notary public’s personal representative, guardian, or any
other person knowingly in possession of the journal would be
required to retain or transmit the journal and inform the
Secretary of State of the journal’s location.

Notarial Acts on Electronic Records (Section 21)
RULONA would provide a notary public may select one
or more tamper-evident technologies to perform notarial acts
with respect to electronic records, and a person could not
require a notary public to perform a notarial act with respect
to an electronic record with a technology the notary public
has not selected.


8- 106
 RULONA would provide requirements before a notary
public performs an initial notarial act with respect to an
electronic record, including notification to the Secretary of
State, identification of the technology to be used, and
evidence of completion of the course of study and passing of
the examination required by Section 23. If the technology
complies with any standards established by the Secretary of
State in rules and regulations, the Secretary of State would
be required to approve the technology. The bill would require
the notary public to include a fee set by the Secretary of
State, not to exceed $25, with the notification, and the
Secretary of State would remit these fees to the State
Treasurer to deposit in the State Treasury to the credit of the
Information and Services Fee Fund.
RULONA would allow a register of deeds to accept for
recording a tangible copy of an electronic record containing a
notarial certificate as satisfying any requirements that a
record accepted for recording be an original, if the notarial
officer executing the notarial certificate certifies the tangible
copy is an accurate copy of the electronic record.

Commission as Notary Public; Qualifications (Section
22)
RULONA would continue provisions from current law
regarding application for and commission as a notary public,
with the following modifications.
The bill would add to the required contents of the
application evidence of the completion of the course of study
and passing of examination regarding electronic records, if
required.
The required assurance in the form of a surety bond or
its functional equivalent would be increased from $7,500 to
$12,000. The bill would clarify this assurance would cover
acts performed during the term of the notary public’s
commission; if the notary public violates law with respect to
9- 106
notaries public in Kansas, the surety or issuing entity would
be liable under the assurance; and a notary public may
perform notarial acts in Kansas only during the period that a
valid assurance is on file with the Secretary of State. The bill
would change the deadline for a required notice regarding
cancellation of assurance from 14 days to 30 days.
The bill would add to the requirements for an applicant
that the applicant be able to read and write the English
language and not be disqualified to receive a commission by
Section 24 of RULONA.
The bill would clarify a commission to act as a notary
public authorizes the notary public to perform notarial acts
and does not provide the notary public any immunity or
benefit conferred by Kansas law on public officials or
employees.

Examination Regarding Electronic Records (Section 23)
RULONA would require, before performing an initial
notarial act with respect to an electronic record, a notary
public to pass an examination administered by the Secretary
of State or an entity approved by the Secretary of State. The
examination would have to be based on a course of study
offered regularly by the Secretary of State or an approved
entity to Kansas notaries public covering the laws, rules,
procedures, and ethics relevant to notarial acts with respect
to electronic records.

Grounds to Deny or Take Other Actions Regarding a
Commission (Section 24)
RULONA would continue and expand provisions from
current law regarding disciplinary actions the Secretary of
State may take respecting a commission as a notary public.


10- 106
 It would add “suspend” and “impose a condition” to the
disciplinary actions the Secretary of State could take; allow
the Secretary of State to take disciplinary action for any act or
omission that demonstrates the individual lacks the honesty,
integrity, competence, or reliability to act as a notary public;
and change the current listing of grounds for disciplinary
action from an exhaustive list to an exemplary list, modifying
this listing as follows:
● Expand grounds involving application for a
commission;
● Reword grounds involving convictions of a crime,
including adding entering into a diversion
agreement;
● Add grounds involving findings or admissions in
any legal proceeding or disciplinary action based
on fraud, dishonesty, or deceit;
● Add grounds involving violation of a rule and
regulation regarding a notary public;
● Add grounds involving disciplinary action regarding
a notary public commission in another state; and
● Add grounds involving failure to maintain an
assurance as required by RULONA.
The bill would state the authority of the