How The Notary Has to Determine Whether His Client Needs An Interpreter

The complainant states that the notary failed to inform her adequately during her divorce. She claims that she doesn’t understand the Dutch language well. She blames the notary for not engaging an interpreter during execution of the instrument. The complainant states that the notary’s fault is more serious because during execution there was an imbalance between her position and that of her ex-husband because he does speak the Dutch language.

The notary in turn responds that he did ask the complainant whether she needed an interpreter to which she responded she didn’t, adding that during their consultations he found that the complainant spoke Dutch very well.

As to whether the notary should have engaged an interpreter during the consultations with the complainant and her ex-husband and during execution of the instrument, the Board of Ethics holds as follows.

The notary’s duty of due diligence requires the notary to ascertain that each of the parties to the legal transaction before the notary is sufficiently capable to understand the commitments she’s undertaking and the rights she’s acquiring or relinquishing. In this context, Section 42 of the Office of Notary Act requires that an interpreter be engaged for execution of instruments at the notary’s office whenever one of the signatories does not fully understand the instrument’s language.

The Board of Ethics proceeds to analyze how the notary verified whether he needed to engage an interpreter and how the notary determined he didn’t need to. The Board gives weight to the fact that the notary showed proof of the matters he discussed with the complainant and the adequate answers she gave during that conversation. Because of her adequate answers the notary could reasonably conclude that engaging an interpreter was not necessary. Furthermore, the Board of Ethics gives importance to the fact that prior to execution the complainant had much time to ask for pre-execution consultations with the assistance of an interpreter, but she didn’t do so nor did she herself engage an interpreter on the date of execution.

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.