OCR Text |
Show PAGE TWENTY' MONDAY, APRIL 8, 1974 INTERMOUNTAIN COMMERCIAL RECORD UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE FILINGS COLORADO 425 MILLING & ELEVATOR Sth S., SLC to Leasing Co.; Copier. W. THE STOREY Fin. Co. ox Krns; Furn. CO., FHA LOUIS N. 117, Leasing FMA CO., 4484 S. 320 V. Ut 84107 to FHA Leasing Mur., THE NEILYN & OR DICK D. WETZEL, 2000 S. 13th. E. , SLC to Coping Machine. CHLOE S., FMA 4861 Krns, Ut 84118 M. & COON & S., LUPE t ROMERO, 4376 W. of Krns; hhg. Leasing; BENNY & RUTH ESPEONZA, SLC to Cen. 3450 S., of Krsn; hhg. W. 5015 to Cen. 62 W. L. & JUDY BLANCO, 4448 S. to Century Fin. co. of Krns; unlisted. 4120 W., Krns, Ut MSLVIN R. & ELIZABETH 3822 S. 6035 W., to Century Fin. unlisted. S. W. & MARY LOU LOHMAN, 188S W. 3350 SLC to Century LARRY RALPH H. & AZALIA Redd L. Vista Dr. , Sandy , Ut to Century Fin. Co. of Krsn; Buena GARY Fin. & RUTH SLC hhg & & EILENE to Household con. gds. CHRISTIANSNE Indiana Ave., SLC , to Pa- cific Fin; Furn. 4880 S. 8th E., to Nationwide Fin. Corp. of Ut; misc. gds. BESSIE KARRAS, 807 S. W. 84102 SLC 3SPEN0ZA, 62 W. 3450 S., SLC to Cen. Co. of Krns; Camper. 231 & POLLY SMITH, Ave., L. 1127 , Krns, Ut 84118 to Co. of Krns; Furn. Fin. Century 4055 BENNY NIELSEN, 8699 & FAYE NAY, L. Fin. Corp; 4804 U., JOHN S., Fin. Co. of Krns; Furn. RICHARD of Krns; Furn. Co. Krns; Fin. Co. of Krns; Furn. W. SMITH, PAUL & KATHY BYRON, SLC to Cen. 4300 HUEY SMITH, of ELIZABETH 38?; S, 6035 W., Hunter, Ut to Cen. Fin. Co. of Krns; TV. NORMAN BRINGHARD, 3159 W. 3780 S., Grngr, Ut 84119 to Cen. Fin. Co.; Stereo. Hunter, Ut Co. t.t MELVIN furn. ROGER 4949 W. 5320 S., Krns, Ut to Cen. Fin. Co. Krns; Furn. NOEL L. PAYNE, 5567,8. 4270 W., Krns, Ut to Century Fin. Co. unlisted. TUCKER, 4330 S., Orngr, Ut (o Century Fin. Co. of Krns; 4078 4745 S., Krns, Ut to Cen. Fin. Co. of Krns; unlisted. DAVID & GWEN SHAND, 4421 W. 5700 S., Krns, Ut to Cen. Fin. Co. S. Leasing ASSOC., 345 State St., SLC to FMA Co.; Off. furnishings. 11000 VICTOR Co.; Press. FORTHERINGHAM ROBERT D. & MARILYN 300 Sandy, Ut to Century Fin. Co. of Krns; units LOUIS N. & ELADENE BARKAU, 300 U. 11000 S., Sandy, Ut to Centry Fin. Co. of Krns; Camper. W. CORP., PO Box Kaysville, Ut to Co.; Off. Equip. & ELADENE BARKAU, GEORGE Fin. N. & CATHY WOODRUFF, 5th E. 323 Sandy, Ut 84070 , to Nationwidr Fin. Corp. of (it; FRED O. & PHYLLIS STOLTENBERG, Office of the Attorney General State of Utah Documentamount Stamp Legalizes of the voluminous of legal documents issued, by the Tax Commission, but is also the generally stated law that a stamped signature is legal,, and that such signature may be acThis opinion is dependent upon the knowledged or notarized. Court's definitions of the words "executed, signed, subscribed and acknowledged."- As pointed out in the County Attorney's, opinion, Webster's Dictionary defines the word "signed" as to "affix a signature (to ratify by hand or seal) " and also, to subscribe in one's own handwriting, (Emphasis added.) This is not to say that one's own handwriting is the only exclusive method of affixing a person's siqnature. 80 C.J.S., on "signatures" states the general law that the word "signed" is generally defined to mean "an affixed signathe word "subscribe" ture." Section 1 of that volume also defines " a as "being Section 4 of 80 signature at the end or bottom. C.J.S. above states the general proposition that a mark or an "x" may be a binding signature, and it is that at common law, signatures were commonly made with- a seal by individuals ho had no knowledqe of, or ability to write. Subsection 2(b), 80 C.J.S. , on "signatures" states that it is generally the law that a signature is binding even if not "personally affixed." .Subsection 2(c), 80 C.J.S., on "signatures" states the general proposition of law that that type of signature is binding if done .with the purpose and intent by the signator to be bound by that mark or signature. Subsection 6, entitled "By the Hand of Another", alludes to the same proposition that appears to be set forth in the Amador case above cited that is, a mark made by a person at the request or direction of another may be regarded as a signature. That seems to be the law in Arizona, and there are cases holding that a judge was authorized as an agent to sign documents, although that authorization was merely given by telephone. (Kadota Fig Ass'n. v. Case Swavne Co. 167 P. 2d 523 (Cal.)) It appears also to be the law in California that a printed, engraved or photocopied signature is binding. lig.it OPINION NO. 74-0- 12 March 25, 1974 - H. KENT PRICE BY: REQUESTED Director, Collection Division Utah State Tax Commission B. VERNON BY: PREPARED ROMNEY Attorney General BRUCE M. HALE Assistant Attorney General QUESTIONS : well-kno- Is 2. State Tax Commission document which is signed by the use of a signature stamp or' a computer considered a legal document for docketing by a county clerk's office in the State of Utah? If the answer to Question No. 1 is "yes", may that signature be acknowledged or notarized? a Utah CONCLUSIONS 1. Yes. 2. Yes. " ANALYSIS': The subject of this opinion has been alluded to which was issued on in Opinion No. this office by the 10th of December, 1970, wherein Question No. 2 of that 70-06- 8, decision states that a rubber stamp may be used in placing of a signature on a premarital certificate. In the aforementioned opinion, this office cited the case of Amador v. Department of Employment Security of the State of Utah, 25 Utah 2d 150, 478 P. 2d 335 (1970), wherein the Supreme Court of the State of Utah held that a "claim for unemployment compensation benefits" signed by the claimant's wife under his authorization where there appeared to be no allegations of fraud was a binding claim upon the department. In that case, the Utah Supreme Court stated: "... I t has long been the rule that the signing of a legal document may be done own him, either by the maker thereof affixing his signature or by adopting one or by making his mark., written for. or impressing other sign or symbol on the paper by which the signature, although written by another for some identified." (Emphasis added.) case stands for the holding the that It appears must bound be that the department by a claim signed by the claimant's authorized agent. The above citation is clearly indicative of the Court's intent to adopt the generally achim, may be above-nam- ed cepted law upholding stamped and computerized signatures as being valid. The Logan County Attorney has given his opinion that the County Clerk in Logan should not accept any more Utah State Tax Commission's Satisfactions of Judgment, unless they are "personally signed" and until this office issues a legal opinion approving the practice of the Utah State Tax Commission. This is probably the safest position for him to take, but, again, it is our opinion that, not only is this practice necessary in Available now in - A Professional Plaza Tradition thevc"d , Built in the tradition of the Three Fountains Professional Buildings, Water-burPlaza is now 500 suites from to 4,000 sq. ft. offering ranging Long term leases are available and we'll design and build the interiors to fit your needs. We're conveniently located in the heart of the Holladay Area. WATERBURY PLAZA by Prowswood WW 5600 South Van Winkle Expressway Telephone: 262-463- tX"" 7 3E P" wn - (Weimer v. Mullaney, The form 140 P. 2d 704 (Cal.)) of acknowledgment used by the State Tax Co- reads, in effect, as follows: "... appeared before me the foregoing and acknowledged that he signed the Satisfaction of Warrant." There are cases upholding the validity of stamped and acknowledged complaints, and such was the holding in the Texas case of Parsons v. State. 429 S.W. 2d 476 (1968) . It would appear that the main question here is whether or not a county clerk's office may enter a Satisfaction of Judgment which was "executed" with a stamped signature by an appaunder the rerently authorized person and then acknowledged ' 58 That Rule rule requires that B(c), U.R.C.P. quirements of the Satisfaction be "duly executed and acknowledged", and it is, therefore, our opinion that the word "executed" as set forth by the Supreme Court in that rule should take the usual meaning a set forth above, and, therefore, an authorized stamped signammission ture is legally binding and may be acknowledged. We cite as authority for that proposition the case of Salt Lake City v. ' Stewart M. Hanson. 19 Utah 2d 32, 425 P. 2d, 773 (1967), in which our Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Judge's stamped signature on a complaint and a sheriff's deputy's stamped signature, and the accused was not allowed to take advantage of , a mere technicality. The Court cited the general proposition of: modern law that is, with regard to a signature it is the intent that is important. For convenience, the relevant wording is as follows: "... In regard to a signature, it is the. intent rather than the form of the act that is important. While one's signature is usually made by writing his name, the same purpose can be accomplished by placing any writing, indicia or symbol which the signer chooses to adopt and, use as his signature and by which it may be proved: e.g., by finger or thumb prints, by a cross or other mark, or by any type of mechanically reproduced or stamped facsimile of his signature, as effectively as by his own handwriting." (Citing cases) (Emphasis added.) It would appear that the possible dangers of abuse or as set forth in the dissent in the Amador case cited above, fraud would be minimized in this fact situation, and it may be distinguished from the fact situation set forth in that case as it is assumed that all documents will be issued by authorized repre- ' sentatives under supervision by the Utah State Tax Commission. In conclusion, it is the opinion of this office that- - the Utah State Tax Commission may issue legal documents that may be signed by affixing a stamped signature or a computerized signature as long as the signature is adopted by it and the Tax Commission intends to be bound by that "signature." Since that signature must be held to be a legally binding signature, the same may be acknowledged or notarized. Respectfully submitted, VERNON B. ROMNEY Attorney General State of Utah ' |