| Index |
| Previous |
| Next |
| Notaire Memorandum |
| Copyright © 2009-2013, Marc CAMPUS |
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM OF LAW
CASE: CS 1 Group Legal Office Co. v. Mr. DUCHAN Notaire
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether the defendant notary’s actions were in
accordance with business practice norms and whether said actions, thereby making such conduct justifiable under
applicable law.
ISSUE
Whether the French notary committed negligence by failing to verify the nationality of witnesses to
ensure the will complied with applicable laws.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 27, 2004, Plaintiff Texas Riding Co. filed a complaint before the Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr.
Duchan’s negligent will representation. The notary represented to plaintiff that the will was valid, not only in France
but also in the United States. Later, he carelessly advised the plaintiff not to disclose the page with the name of the
witnesses but only the page where the company was appointed as the beneficiary. However, the will was not valid and
the plaintiff was not allowed to take under its terms. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney fees for
the notary’s negligence and fraud.
ANALYSIS
Issue : Whether the notary committed negligence and fraud by failing to verify the nationality of both witnesses in
accordance with will requirements.
Plaintiff’s current cause of action against the notary stems from the notary’s failure to properly verify the nationality of
a witness as required by law. The issue here is whether the notary’s actions constituted negligence and fraud,
thereby allowing plaintiff to recover damages. A notary is responsible for drafting an authentic will, to ensure
the documents are jurisdictionally and judicially reliable, and to ensure the identification of witnesses.
Here, the notary failed to do so. As such, he had a duty to ensure that the will conformed to all applicable laws.
Failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Under applicable law, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence,
which are: (1) the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a casual connection between
defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff.
As stated previously, the notary had a duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry regarding the witnesses’ nationalities. He
breached that duty by failing to conduct a proper investigation. With respect to a proper investigation, plaintiff asserts
that the notary is entrusted with ensuring that a will conforms to applicable laws. Failure to do so may invalidate a
will thereby preventing a legatee from benefiting from the will contents.
A notary has the power to acknowledge instruments such as wills and deeds and leases and mortgages; to take out-
of-court depositions; to administer oaths; and the discretion to refuse to perform any of the foregoing acts, notaries,
as public officers are involved in countless matters of importance. The community depends upon the notary to
insure that those persons executing documents are accurately identified, to refuse to certify any
identification that is false or uncertain, and to insist that oaths are properly and accurately administered.
Moreover, courts recognize that property succession, especially when a will is involved, depend upon
the care and integrity of the notary to verify the authenticity of the execution of documents and
individuals.
Furthermore, considerable damage could result from the negligent or dishonest performance of a notary's duties.
Plaintiff’s injury can be directly traced to the notary’s negligence since the notary failed to ensure that
both witnesses were the correct nationality. Had the notary inquired and actually correctly performed his
duties, plaintiff would have been able to take under the will.
Plaintiff, Texas Riding Line Co. suffered millions of dollars in damages due to the notary’s negligence.
Furthermore, the elements of fraud are a willful intent to conceal the truth. Here, the notary did everything in order to
conceal the truth. First of all, the notary failed to ensure the identity of the witnesses. Next, he failed to inform plaintiff
that there was a potential problem with the validity of the will. Last but not least, he misrepresented the fact that the
will would be valid in the United States although it would not be valid in France; a representation believed by plaintiffs
which later held not to be true. But for the notary’s negligence and fraud, the will would have been a valid
instrument allowing plaintiff to legally inherit under the will. As such, since the Plaintiff has proven all the
elements of negligence, the Court should therefore grant plaintiff’s claim for relief.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has proven its causes of action against the notary. Plaintiffs respectfully request attorney’s fees and all other
relief this Court deems appropriate. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of negligence since
plaintiffs have proven all of its elements. Furthermore, under French law, the burden of proof rests with the
notary to prove that he was not at fault. Since the notary will be unable to meet his burden, the Court
should rule in plaintiff’s favor.
CASE: CS 1 Group Legal Office Co. v. Mr. DUCHAN Notaire
STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT
You have asked me to write a brief memorandum of law regarding whether the defendant notary’s actions were in
accordance with business practice norms and whether said actions, thereby making such conduct justifiable under
applicable law.
ISSUE
Whether the French notary committed negligence by failing to verify the nationality of witnesses to
ensure the will complied with applicable laws.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On September 27, 2004, Plaintiff Texas Riding Co. filed a complaint before the Chambre des Notaires regarding Mr.
Duchan’s negligent will representation. The notary represented to plaintiff that the will was valid, not only in France
but also in the United States. Later, he carelessly advised the plaintiff not to disclose the page with the name of the
witnesses but only the page where the company was appointed as the beneficiary. However, the will was not valid and
the plaintiff was not allowed to take under its terms. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorney fees for
the notary’s negligence and fraud.
ANALYSIS
Issue : Whether the notary committed negligence and fraud by failing to verify the nationality of both witnesses in
accordance with will requirements.
Plaintiff’s current cause of action against the notary stems from the notary’s failure to properly verify the nationality of
a witness as required by law. The issue here is whether the notary’s actions constituted negligence and fraud,
thereby allowing plaintiff to recover damages. A notary is responsible for drafting an authentic will, to ensure
the documents are jurisdictionally and judicially reliable, and to ensure the identification of witnesses.
Here, the notary failed to do so. As such, he had a duty to ensure that the will conformed to all applicable laws.
Failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Under applicable law, to establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must prove the elements of negligence,
which are: (1) the existence of a duty by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a casual connection between
defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s injury, and (4) injury of the plaintiff.
As stated previously, the notary had a duty to conduct a reasonable inquiry regarding the witnesses’ nationalities. He
breached that duty by failing to conduct a proper investigation. With respect to a proper investigation, plaintiff asserts
that the notary is entrusted with ensuring that a will conforms to applicable laws. Failure to do so may invalidate a
will thereby preventing a legatee from benefiting from the will contents.
A notary has the power to acknowledge instruments such as wills and deeds and leases and mortgages; to take out-
of-court depositions; to administer oaths; and the discretion to refuse to perform any of the foregoing acts, notaries,
as public officers are involved in countless matters of importance. The community depends upon the notary to
insure that those persons executing documents are accurately identified, to refuse to certify any
identification that is false or uncertain, and to insist that oaths are properly and accurately administered.
Moreover, courts recognize that property succession, especially when a will is involved, depend upon
the care and integrity of the notary to verify the authenticity of the execution of documents and
individuals.
Furthermore, considerable damage could result from the negligent or dishonest performance of a notary's duties.
Plaintiff’s injury can be directly traced to the notary’s negligence since the notary failed to ensure that
both witnesses were the correct nationality. Had the notary inquired and actually correctly performed his
duties, plaintiff would have been able to take under the will.
Plaintiff, Texas Riding Line Co. suffered millions of dollars in damages due to the notary’s negligence.
Furthermore, the elements of fraud are a willful intent to conceal the truth. Here, the notary did everything in order to
conceal the truth. First of all, the notary failed to ensure the identity of the witnesses. Next, he failed to inform plaintiff
that there was a potential problem with the validity of the will. Last but not least, he misrepresented the fact that the
will would be valid in the United States although it would not be valid in France; a representation believed by plaintiffs
which later held not to be true. But for the notary’s negligence and fraud, the will would have been a valid
instrument allowing plaintiff to legally inherit under the will. As such, since the Plaintiff has proven all the
elements of negligence, the Court should therefore grant plaintiff’s claim for relief.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has proven its causes of action against the notary. Plaintiffs respectfully request attorney’s fees and all other
relief this Court deems appropriate. The Courts should rule in plaintiff’s favor for its claim of negligence since
plaintiffs have proven all of its elements. Furthermore, under French law, the burden of proof rests with the
notary to prove that he was not at fault. Since the notary will be unable to meet his burden, the Court
should rule in plaintiff’s favor.
