Courts; remote online notaries public and remote online notarizations; provide
HB 289 creates a new legal framework in Georgia for remote online notarization and electronic in-person notarization. It defines key terms such as remote online notary public, communication technology, electronic seal, digital signature, identity proofing, and electronic journal, and authorizes notaries to perform notarizations through approved audio-video technology when the signer is not physically present. The bill also directs the Georgia Superior Court Clerks' Cooperative Authority to adopt technical standards for remote online notarization by January 1, 2027, and to consider national standards from groups such as MISMO, NASS, and NIST.
The bill establishes application, training, bond, recordkeeping, and security requirements for remote online notaries. Applicants must already be commissioned as Georgia notaries, complete a course and exam, disclose certain background information, maintain a $2,000 surety bond, and keep secure electronic journals and audiovisual recordings for at least ten years through an approved repository. The measure also allows certain nonresident individuals from bordering states who work in Georgia to be appointed as remote online notaries, and it sets a maximum fee of $25 per remote online notarization.
HB 289 would substantially amend Georgia's notary, real property recording, consumer protection, and public records laws to recognize electronic and remote notarizations as legally effective. It updates recordation rules so deeds and other real estate documents can be accepted with electronic signatures and remote witnessing, and it provides that remote online notarizations satisfy appearance and presence requirements in most contexts, except for wills, codicils, and testamentary trusts. The bill also makes audiovisual recordings of remote online notarizations exempt from public disclosure under Georgia's open records law and adds a Fair Business Practices Act violation for knowingly recording certain residential real estate documents that result from unauthorized practice of law.
The bill appears generally supportive of modernization and expanded access to notarization services, with its structure emphasizing security, identity verification, and standardized procedures. Although no committee transcript or vote record is provided, the legislation's detailed safeguards, training requirements, and limits on use suggest an effort to balance convenience with fraud prevention and legal integrity. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided context makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge beyond the bill's clear pro-implementation design.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be consumer protection, fraud prevention, and the boundaries of legal practice. The bill requires strong identity proofing, secure technology, journals, and long-term retention, indicating concern about misuse of remote notarization and document fraud. It also expressly preserves Georgia's unauthorized-practice-of-law rules and bars non-attorney remote notaries from giving legal advice, which may reflect concern from the legal profession and real estate stakeholders. Another possible issue is the treatment of real estate closings and the acceptance of out-of-state remote notarizations, which could raise questions about oversight and enforcement.