Maine Notaries Warned of Scammers

January 2026

A new year brings in a few changes to notarial laws in Oklahoma. Background checks have dominated local conversation, but there are several fee changes that are of note, as well as the requirements for the notaries’ bond.

As states continue to bring notary fees into the 21st century, as well as a little extra cash for the coffers, notaries across a variety of states have been hit by higher initial and renewal fees. This is now the case in Oklahoma, where fees have more than doubled with the new rules changes.

The overall difference in many cases is not that much, but either way, it is going to be a cost of business to run your notary venture.

Here is a link to SB1028.

Background Checks

A national database background check will apply to all new applicants and renewals. While it is the case that Oklahoma notaries have always had a felony prevent them from being a notary, it appears the search for a case will now become more thorough.

The system is electronic, and allows a prospective or established notary to deliver their fingerprint by digital means. No information in the bill explains this process.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation will have 14 days from receipt to submit the results of the background check to the Secretary of State.

A felony conviction shall be grounds for removal of a person from the office of notary public and shall
preclude a person from further applying for or renewing a notary commission.

Fee Changes

Before we start with fee changes, let’s touch the bond really quickly. The required bond with the state used to be, $1,000. It now rises to $10,000.

The fee for your background check is a new one, as that is new to the system. You may be charged $50 or the cost of the background check. Whichever cost is lower.

Other Fee Changes

• Someone filing for a new notary commission will now pay $50 instead of $25.
• Notary renewals jump from $20 to $45
• If you use same day filing service shall pay $50 instead of $25.
• The filing fee for filing for your bond jumps to $25 from $10.

These funds shall be deposited in the Revolving Fund revolving fund created for the Secretary of State pursuant to the provisions of Section 276.1 of Title 62 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

The bill is pretty short and sweet.

The original bill wasn’t very long and these changes don’t change it that much. The federal background check sounds like a big change, but it really only affects rules that are already in effect, just in a more thorough manner.

And as we see fees rise across the country, it is no shock they would bind their way to Oklahoma.

• Facebook Page
• LinkedIn Page
• Sunshine's Twitter, or X Page

We said we would keep you up to date on this story, so here it goes.

To backtrack, a Nebraska notary was accused of signing fraudulent signatures regarding the state’s medical marijuana bill. It amounted to 24 counts of improper notarization. The case was dismissed and then brought back to life via appeal.

And then the notary threw his ring in the hat to run for Governor of Nebraska.

We could try to go more in depth, but why don’t you check out our previous articles on the topic.

• Accused Nebraska Notary to Run for Governor
• Nebraska Notary Case Back On
• Nebraska Notary Saga Goes On
• They Asked for It, They Got It
• In the News – November 2024

Well, it jumped to the Nebraska Supreme Court. And they heard first arguments on Wednesday, December 3rd.

The Players in the Arguments

So, we have Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana. Then we have former State Senator John Kuehn. Then a cross-filing was submitted by Secretary of State Bob Evnen. This is the guy who certified the signatures allowing the referendum to go on the ballot.

Both Kuehn and Evnen are asking the Nebraska Supreme Court to send the case back to a lower court.

Evnen’s lawyers argue that the case should be remanded to the lower court for the second part of the trial. They want the sponsors of the bill to prove they had enough valid signatures for the referendum.

Nebraskan’s for Medical Marijuana argued that Evnen does not have standing for this case, as he had a duty to certify ballots.

“We ask as a practical manner, for the benefit of the parties, for the benefit of the lawyers, and most importantly, for the benefit of the public, can Secretary Evnen certified the initiative, pull the plug at the last minute, admit he has no standing under the exclusive statutory provision, and then circumvent that through the declaratory judgment act?,” said Daniel Gutman, an attorney representing Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana.

SiouxlandProud

Kuehn’s lawyers pointed to how the alleged fraud could affect future ballot initiatives. They basically say that if the current ruling from the lower court is allowed to stand, then any two people could game the system and get any future initiative they want onto the ballot.

It is an interesting argument, but one has to wonder how two people could do this.

But, Kuehn’s lawyers addressed that. They said that all people accused of malfeasance would have to do is invoke the fifth amendment.

Overall, this seems like it raised more questions than answers. But we guess that is probably the point of hearings like these.

And it appears the saga will continue.

• Facebook Page
• LinkedIn Page
• Sunshine's Twitter, or X Page

A New Jersey class action lawsuit against UPS has cleared the bar and is allowed to proceed. The allegations are that UPS, and some of its franchises, overcharged for notary services.

In New Jersey the maximum fee is $2.50 per notarial act. UPS is alleged to have charged up to $15 per act. Was it put into a direct fee? No. It was hidden behind the surface as “notary convenience” or “clerical fee”.

The courts in New Jersey have ruled to let the lawsuit move forward. This is on the heels of the same action in Illinois. In both cases the courts found that the lawsuit had merit, based on the grounds of consumer protection.

Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Regarding the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Both the UPS Store Inc and franchises are defendants in the lawsuit. The court found the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the agency had enough merit that the relationship between UPS Store corporate and its franchisees to allow a vicariously liability theory to proceed.

While UPS Store corporate is targeted in the lawsuit, they still may not be involved in the end result. This is based on if they had knowledge of the situation, and how it was handled between the corporate offices and the franchisees.

The plaintiffs alleged that TUPSS (The UPS Store Inc.) requires New Jersey franchisees to offer notary services, mandates the number of notaries available during operating hours, requires franchisees to use a standardized point-of-sale system with TUPSS-approved SKU codes, provides extensive training on notary services, and monitors transactional data including the amounts charged for notary services. The plaintiffs further alleged that TUPSS oversees advertising and marketing for notary services and maintains a customer-service department that sometimes issues refunds directly to customers regarding notary-service charges.

Buchalter

Plaintiffs purchased notary services at New Jersey UPS stores and, in class action complaints, alleged they were charged an amount that exceeded the $2.50 fee permitted by New Jersey law. Neither complaint alleged that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. During discovery, while an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss was pending, UPS produced a spreadsheet showing that the New Jersey UPS stores had more than one million notary transactions during the six-year class period, which established an amount in controversy that satisfied federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). UPS removed both complaints to federal court. The district court remanded, reasoning that UPS could have performed the required calculation when the spreadsheet was produced in December 2020, so the removal petitions filed months later were untimely. The court did not consider whether CAFA’s local controversy exception required remand.

Justia

As stated, this does not just affect New Jersey, but Illinois has a similar case result as well. This is bringing allegations in multiple states, and the class action lawsuits are sure to spread to other states.

This points to the integrity of the system at UPS for their notary services. People need to make sure they use people that they can rely on to do the job correctly, and charge fees legally allowed by law.

If you are in the Hudson area of Florida, you are always welcome to get your documents signed at our office located at 13939 Lakeshore Blvd. Suite 101, Hudson, FL 34667. You can depend on Sunshine Signing to get it right every time.

• Facebook Page
• LinkedIn Page
• Sunshine's Twitter, or X Page