ALJDEC - Licensing
25-007-NOT · Secretary of State · 2025-08-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Wendell Goodroad III
Petitioner,
vs.
Arizona Secretary of State,
Respondent.
No. 25-007-NOT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: August 18, 2025 at 9:00 AM.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Kyle Cummings, Esq. appeared on behalf of the Arizona Secretary of State (“Respondent”) with Diana Ogaz as a witness. Rebecca Donsky, Esq. appeared on behalf of Wendell Goodroad III (“Petitioner”). Luke Douglas observed.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Jenna Clark.
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The Notice of Hearing, Petitioner Exhibits A-D, Respondent Exhibits 1-7, and Minute Entries dated July 16, 2025, and August 12, 2025, were admitted into the evidentiary record.
_____________________________________________________________________
After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this Recommended Order to the referring agency.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
Respondent records and maintains notary public commissions in the State of Arizona. A Notary Public witnesses signatures, verifies identities of signers, and must be impartial. Notaries may perform only acknowledgments, jurats, copy certifications, and oaths and affirmations. In order to be commissioned, Notaries must meet several basic requirements codified in Arizona Revised Statutes (“Ariz. Rev. Stat.”) § 41-312(E) in order to be commissioned.
On May 23, 2023, Respondent issued Notary Public No. [number redacted] to Petitioner. The commission was set to expire on May 11, 2027.
On May 30, 2025, Respondent revoked Petitioner’s Notary Public commission, effective June 13, 2025, for alleged violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-251(1), 41-251(16), 41-253(A), 41-253(B)(1-2), 41-254(A), 41-255, 41-271(A)(1), 41-271(A)(5), 41-271(A)(12), 41-319(A)(5-6), 41-319(F), 41-323(B), 41-323(C), and 41-331(B).
On June 18, 2025, Respondent referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing regarding Petitioner’s appeal of Respondent’s determination to revoke his Notary Commission.
On June 19, 2025, Respondent issued a Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing on August 18, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. at OAH to determine whether Respondent’s revocation of Petitioner’s notary commission was lawful and proper.
Hearing Evidence
Respondent presented the testimony of Diana Ogaz, Notary Compliance Director (“Director Ogaz”). Petitioner testified on his own behalf. The substantive evidence of record is as follows:
On or about August 15, 2024, Respondent received a complaint (“Complaint #1”) against Petitioner’s notary commission wherein it was alleged that Petitioner had executed a notarial act on foreign language documents without obtaining signatures from all individuals named or listed therein. Complaint #1 further alleged that an involved third party, whose signature was also missing, indicated that they had no direct interaction with Petitioner during the transaction and were not asked to sign Petitioner’s journal.
On or about August 22, 2024, Respondent received a second complaint (“Complaint #2”) against Petitioner’s notary commission wherein it was alleged that Petitioner acknowledged the signature of a consumer despite their signature being missing from the documents, and notarized photocopies of a vehicle title and birth certificate, neither of which were eligible for notarization. Both notarizations are listed on an acknowledgment page dated August 12, 2024.
On September 03, 2024, Respondent provided Petitioner with notice regarding its receipt of Complaints #1 and #2, and its consolidation and investigation(s) thereof pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-331. Petitioner was instructed to provide a written response to both complaint by September 18, 2024, and provide copies of journal pages reflecting notarizations July 29, 2024, to August 13, 2024.
On September 14, 2024, Petitioner submitted his written response to Complaints #1 and #2 to Respondent. Petitioner denied performing services alleged in Complaint #1, opining that both his seal and signature had been forged. Petitioner also denied being a Spanish speaker and argued that he would not have notarized documents that were not in English. Per Petitioner, he habitually obtained signatures for every notarization, and further opined that the allegation of “no direct interaction” was an additional falsehood. Regarding Complaint #2, Petitioner admitted to the alleged conduct but argued because he had not previously made such an apostille, he had verified that his actions were permissible with the Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) prior to engagement. Petitioner apologized for his error and avowed to cease similar conduct moving forward.
Additional Evidence
When complaints are received by Respondent, they are sent to the Attorney General’s Office (“AGO”) for investigation. Once investigation findings are returned to Respondent, Director Ogaz reviews them and is responsible for making disciplinary determinations, if any.
In Petitioner’s case, Director Ogaz made the following determinations based on the information provided by the AGO:
The underlying documents in Complaint #1 are both titled CARTA PODER/Otorgamiento in Spanish, which translates to Power of Attorney in English, were notarized on July 30, 2024.
The first document (“Carta 1”), contained pre-printed signature lines for individuals [E.D.J.H.] and [E.M.J.M.], both of which are blank. The jurat stated Petitioner witnessed the signatures of both persons.
The second document (“Carta 2”), contained pre-printed signature lines for individuals [E.D.J.H.], [A.J.C.], and [A.M.J.M.]. The lines for [E.D.J.H.] and [A.J.C.] contained signatures, but the signature line for [E.M.J.M.] was blank. The jurat dated stated Petitioner witnessed the signatures of all 3 persons. Each of the jurat notarial certificates included Petitioner’s signature and notary stamp. Respondent never received nor discovered any evidence that Petitioner’s stamp had been compromised during this time period.
The Notarial acknowledgment for Carta 2 indicated Petitioner notarized the signature of a client, despite the absence of their signature on the document(s). [T.A.B.V.] signed Petitioner’s journal, but did not sign the documents. Neither document required a signature, as neither was eligible for notarization. Without a signature on the document, Petitioner could not complete the acknowledgment or notarial certificate in compliance with applicable law.
Journal entries were not created for the documents mentioned in Complaint #1.
Petitioner’s journal lacked a section for the Type of Notarial Act performed, resulting in the information being omitted from all entries.
Entry #9 on the third and fourth pages of Petitioner’s journal corresponds to the notarial service mentioned in Complaint #2. The August 12, 2024, entry lists “apostille of a car title/birth certificate” as the document type but does not indicate the type of notarization performed. It indicates “DL” for the identification type, including an identification number, but does not include a complete description of the driver’s license; including its issuance or expiration date. The Print Name and Signature of Individual section contains the name [T.A.B.V.], and a corresponding signature. For all entries under the Identification Type section, Petitioner recorded an identification number and checked the “DL” box, but did not include a complete description of the driver’s license, nor did it include a date of issuance or expiration.
Petitioner testified that he did not notarize the Carta #1 or #2, and that he has he ever met the signers. Petitioner defended that both his signature and seal had been forged, as he kept his notary materials under lock and key at all times and never let anyone use them. Petitioner also testified that, at the relevant time, he believed he acted within his jurisdiction to notarize a vehicle title and birth certificate, in part, because he relied on information he obtained from another government agency. Per Petitioner, since that time he has learned the intricacies of an apostille and knows that is a government-issued certificate to authenticate the notarization of a document for use in another country, which cannot be notarized.
Closing Arguments
In closing, Petitioner reiterated his denial of notarizing, or attempting to notarize, Carta #1 or #2 in Complaint #1, and argued that because his signature and seal were forged revocation of his certification for those acts was improper. While Petitioner conceded acting outside the scope of his certification in Complaint #2, he opined that his naïve reliance on information obtained from ADOT qualified as a factor in mitigation. Petitioner also offered that he has made a number of changes to his practice to avoid journal deficiencies and other improper notarial acts, and noted that he would be open to taking continuing education courses in order to have his notarial certification reinstated.
In closing, Respondent argued that sufficient evidence existed to uphold Petitioner’s notarial revocation, and opined that Petitioner’s mitigation argument was unreliable because it as unsubstantiated. Per Respondent, Petitioner’s misunderstanding or lack of knowledge regarding an apostille warranted intervention to ensure the public remained protected under Respondent’s jurisdiction.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within Respondent’s jurisdiction, and was properly brought before OAH for adjudication.
Respondent has the statutory authority to commission notaries in the State of Arizona to a public 4-year term, and maintains records of these commissions in their office.
Respondent has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the allegation(s) and raise any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-251(1) defines “[a]cknowledgment" to mean a declaration by an individual before a notarial officer that the individual has signed a record for the purpose stated in the record and, if the record is signed in a representative capacity, that the individual signed the record with proper authority and signed it as the act of the individual or entity identified in the record.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-251(16) defines "[v]erification on oath or affirmation" to mean a declaration, made by an individual on oath or affirmation before a notarial officer, that a statement in a record is true.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-253(A) provides that “[a] notarial officer who takes an acknowledgment of a record shall determine, from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual, that the individual appearing before the officer and making the acknowledgment has the identity claimed and that the signature on the record is the signature of the individual.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-253(B)(1-2) provides that a notarial officer who takes a verification of a statement on oath or affirmation shall determine from personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual, that the individual appearing before the officer and making the verification has the identity claimed and that the signature on the statement verified is the signature of the individual, and that the record that contains the statement verified is complete to the best of the notarial officer's knowledge.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-254(A) provides that if a notarial act relates to a statement made in or a signature executed on a record, the individual making the statement or executing the signature shall appear personally before the notarial officer.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-255 provides, in pertinent part, that a notarial officer has personal knowledge of the identity of an individual appearing before the officer if the individual is personally known to the notarial officer through dealings sufficient to provide reasonable certainty that the individual has the identity claimed, or the notarial officer has satisfactory evidence of the identity of the individual by verifying their unexpired United States passport, or driver’s license, state identification card, tribal government identification card, or military identification card.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-271(A)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that Respondent may “revoke a commission as notary public for any act or omission that demonstrates the individual lacks the competence or reliability to act as a notary public, including failure to comply with this article.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-271(A)(5) provides, in pertinent part, that Respondent may “revoke a commission as notary public for any act or omission that demonstrates the individual lacks the competence or reliability to act as a notary public, including failure by the notary public to discharge any duty required of a notary public, whether by this article, rules of the secretary of state or federal or state law.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-271(A)(12) provides, in pertinent part, that Respondent may “revoke a commission as notary public for any act or omission that demonstrates the individual lacks the competence or reliability to act as a notary public, including failure to respond to any request for information or to comply with any investigation initiated by the secretary of state or the attorney general.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-319(A)(5-6) provides, in pertinent part, that a notary public shall keep a paper journal to chronicle all notarial acts performed regarding tangible records. A notary public shall keep either a paper journal or one or more electronic journals to chronicle all notarial acts performed regarding electronic records. The notary public shall record all notarial acts in chronological order. The notary public shall furnish, when requested, a certified copy of any public record in the notary public's journal. Each journal entry shall include at least he type of satisfactory evidence of identity presented to the notary public by each individual for whom a notarial act is performed, or a notation that the notary public's personal knowledge of the individual was used as satisfactory evidence of identity, and a description of the identification card or document, if any, including its date of issuance or expiration.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-319(F) provides, in pertinent part, that a notary public's journal is a public record that may be viewed by or copied for any member of the public, but only on presentation to the notary public of a written request that details the month and year of the notarial act, the name of the individual whose signature was notarized and the type of record or transaction.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-323(B) provides that within ten days after the loss, theft or compromise of an official journal or stamping device, the notary public shall deliver to the Secretary of State, by certified mail or other means providing a receipt, a signed notice of the loss, theft or compromise. The notary also shall inform the appropriate law enforcement agency in the case of theft.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-323(C) provides, in pertinent part, that if a notary public fails to comply with Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-323(B), the notary public has failed to fully and faithfully discharge the duties of a notary public, and the Secretary of State shall impose a civil penalty of $1,000 against the notary. Failure to pay a penalty may be referred to the attorney general for collection.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-331(B) provides that a notary's failure to respond to an investigation is a failure by the notary to fully and faithfully discharge the responsibilities and duties of a notary.
Statutes should be interpreted to provide a fair and sensible result. Statutes shall be liberally construed to affect their objects and to promote justice. In interpreting a statute, “[w]e first consider the language of the statute and, if it is unclear, turn to other factors, including ‘the statute’s context, subject matter, historical background, effects, consequences, spirit, and purpose.” “In applying a statute its words are to be given their ordinary meaning unless the legislature has offered its own definition of the words or it appears from the context that a special meaning was intended.”
The Tribunal is required to apply equitable principles when rendering decisions. The application of equity entails offering a remedy to avoid an unconscionable or unjust result.
The crux of the issue here is whether, in light of all evidence most favorable to Petitioner, grounds existed for Respondent to revoke Petitioner’s notary commission per applicable laws. After a thorough review of the credible and relevant evidence of record, the undersigned finds that Respondent has not sustained the requisite burden of proof in order for the Tribunal to affirm the disciplinary action at issue.
The material facts in this matter are clear.
The record clearly establishes that Respondent issued Petitioner a notary commission, and at all times maintained jurisdiction over Petitioner. It is also clear that Petitioner was required to effectuate the duties of his commission pursuant to statute and rule, or face discipline up to and including revocation of his certification. While Respondent aptly had Petitioner’s alleged conduct investigated as result of Complaints #1 and #2, the record does not support Respondent’s determination to revoke Petitioner’s notary commission.
Here, when weighed against Petitioner’s vehement denials of wrongdoing and testimony regarding the security of his seal, and by association his signature, as well as his credible testimony regarding his policy of only notarizing document in English, Respondent’s evidence does not establish that he more likely than not committed the acts alleged in Complaint #1. So too, Petitioner’s journal entries do not establish act(s) of misconduct. Notably, Respondent’s tangential argument regarding Petitioner’s failure to report his seal stolen is a misnomer, as Petitioner never admitted to having a reasonable belief that his seal had been compromised. Petitioner testified that, in his opinion, his seal and signature had been forged. Forgery and loss are not comparable, and Petitioner would not have possessed reasonable knowledge of forgery, or have been required to report such a suspicion to Respondent.
Petitioner’s admission regarding his notarization, or attempt thereof, of an apostille, having committed no other offenses for which disciplined had been administered, does not reasonably establish grounds for revocation of his notary commission. Petitioner’s reliance on information he obtained from ADOT was unquestionably unreasonable and improper, however, his honesty and cooperation in the underlying investigation evince his willingness to submit to Respondent’s regulation and his testimony regarding his desire for continuing education bolsters a since of conviction to faithfully, competently, and lawfully discharge the duties and responsibilities of his commission.
Respondent’s statutory authority is clear and unambiguous: it may act. Thus, at is discretion, Respondent has a choice regarding if, when, and how discipline of a notary occurs. Petitioner’s isolated conduct, as outlined in Complaint #2, is not indicative of a lack of competence or reliability on his part.
Therefore, based on the totality of the circumstances and in consideration of the credible and relevant evidence of record, the Tribunal finds that Petitioner’s alleged statutory violations have not been established by a preponderance of the evidence. As such, Respondent’s May 30, 2025, revocation of Notary Public No. [number redacted] must be reversed.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
In light of the foregoing,
IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s appeal be granted.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 41-1092.08(F)(3) and (I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the Final Decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order shall be five (5) days from the date of the certification.
Done this day, August 25, 2025.
Office of Administrative Hearings
/s/ Jenna Clark
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Adrian Fontes, Secretary of State, Respondent
c/o Diana Ogaz, Notary Public Compliance Director
1700 W. Washington St., 7th Fl.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
[email redacted]
Kyle Cummings, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General, Counsel for Respondent
2005 N. Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2926
[email redacted]
[email redacted]
Wendell Goodroad, III, Petitioner
c/o Rebecca L. Donsky, Esq.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Counsel for Petitioner
2 N. Central Ave., Ste. 2200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff