The Notary’s Mere Impression That His Client Understands The Dutch Language Is Not Enough—An Interpreter Is Mandatory To Adequately Inform His Client

This complaint was filed by a non-Dutch-speaking complainant after engaging a notary to transfer his company’s shares. The complainant was convinced that the transfer would be done the same day after meeting with the notary. The complainant alleges that he wasn’t assisted by an interpreter during the consultation at the notary’s office, nor was he asked by the notary whether he had understood the matters they had discussed. The complainant further claims the notary failed to give him adequate information or any explanation about the transaction. The complainant suffered damages because he believed that after their meeting at the notary’s office, he would no longer be the owner of the shares in his limited liability company as a result of which he gave his corporate properties to someone else (bank cards etc.). It turns out he was mistaken. According to the complaint, the notary violated Section 42 of the Office of Notary Act for failure to engage an interpreter and violated Section 43 for failing to inform the complainant adequately.

At the disciplinary hearing the notary stated that she never doubted that the complainant sufficiently understood the Dutch language. The Board of Ethics found that during their meeting the notary made the complainant sign a power of attorney even when they still weren’t clear as to how exactly that power was to transfer his shares. Because signing a power of attorney was habitual practice at the notary’s office and the matter was urgent, the notary should’ve done more to inform the complainant about the consequences of signing the power. The complaint filings and the notary’s defense show that there is insufficient evidence that the notary properly inquired what the complainant exactly wanted. The notary didn’t properly verify whether complainant had understood the consequences of signing the power of attorney. At the disciplinary hearing the Board of Ethics found that there was no evidence that the complainant sufficiently understood the Dutch language. The notary’s mere impression that he did have sufficiently understood the Dutch language was insufficient. The notary should’ve engaged an interpreter or at least should’ve asked questions to the complainant to verify. For these reasons, the Board of Ethics finds for the complainant.

Thank you very much for visiting. Thank you for your donations, for believing in Plus Ultra and for sharing this with anyone who may find this useful. Because of you, we can continue to help the community at large with free multilingual support and in language, law and tourism and create valuable related content, such as articles and videos. Again, we appreciate your support and hope to see you soon again.

© Plus Ultra Publishing & Legal Translations. All rights reserved.