Personal Knowledge vs. Identification: What Virginia's HB 163 Reveals About Document Integrity

Part 1 of the HB 163 & Document Integrity Series

On July 1, 2026, Virginia House Bill 163 (HB 163) takes effect. The legislation was introduced in response to growing concerns about deed fraud and identity verification in real estate transactions. While much of the discussion surrounding the bill has focused on fraud prevention, I was curious about what it might mean for identity verification and notarizations.

As I began reading the approved law, I expected to find significant changes to how identity is established during high-trust transactions. Given the conversations surrounding deed fraud and transaction security, it seemed reasonable to assume that identity verification requirements would be expanded or rewritten.

Instead, I found something surprising. The definitions of "Personal Knowledge" and "Satisfactory Evidence of Identity" in Virginia law remained largely unchanged. That discovery raised an interesting question: If identity verification was already addressed in Virginia law, what can these definitions teach us about document integrity and fraud prevention?

Personal Knowledge: The Highest Level of Identification?

Virginia law defines personal knowledge as familiarity with an individual resulting from interactions over a period of time sufficient to remove any reasonable uncertainty about that person's identity. That is a much higher standard than simply recognizing someone or remembering their name.

Personal knowledge is not meeting someone once, recognizing a face from a previous encounter, or making assumptions based on appearance. Instead, it develops through repeated interactions over time. The relationship becomes strong enough that the notary has no reasonable doubt about who the individual is.

In many ways, personal knowledge represents the strongest form of identification recognized by law because no document is required. The person's identity has already been established through experience and familiarity. At the same time, it is also one of the least common methods used in modern transactions. Most attorneys, settlement agents, title professionals, and notaries regularly work with people they have never met before. That is where satisfactory evidence of identity becomes essential.

Satisfactory Evidence of Identity: What Most Transactions Rely On

When personal knowledge is not available, Virginia law allows identity to be established through satisfactory evidence of identity. For traditional notarizations, this often means examining a qualifying government-issued identification document. In certain situations, identity may also be established through credible witnesses who meet the requirements outlined in the law.

Electronic notarizations provide additional methods for confirming identity. These may include credential analysis, identity proofing, knowledge-based authentication (KBA), biometric verification, digital certificates, and other approved methods. While the technology may differ, the objective remains the same: creating reasonable confidence that the individual signing the document is who they claim to be.

Most transactions today rely on these structured verification methods because they provide a practical way to establish identity when there is no existing relationship between the parties involved. Whether the verification comes from a driver's license, a passport, a credible witness, or a technology-assisted process, the goal is always the same.

Personal Knowledge vs. Identification

At first glance, personal knowledge and satisfactory evidence of identity may appear to be opposites. One is built through familiarity and experience, while the other relies on documentation, technology, and verification procedures.

Yet both exist to answer the same question: How do we know this person is who they claim to be?

Personal knowledge answers that question through an established relationship. Satisfactory evidence of identity answers it through independent verification. Although the approaches are different, neither exists simply to satisfy a legal requirement. Both are designed to reduce uncertainty and create confidence in the transaction.

That is why I found it so interesting that Virginia left these definitions largely unchanged when addressing concerns about fraud and transaction security. The state already had established standards for identity verification. The conversation may be less about creating new standards and more about ensuring existing standards are consistently understood and applied.

What HB 163 Taught Me About Document Integrity

One of the biggest takeaways from reading HB 163 was realizing that Virginia already had detailed identity verification standards in place. The definitions of personal knowledge and satisfactory evidence of identity were not created by this legislation. They existed long before the bill was introduced.

That does not mean fraud cannot occur. No verification system is perfect. However, it does suggest that fraud prevention is not simply a matter of creating new rules. It is also a matter of understanding existing requirements, following established procedures, and exercising professional judgment when something does not seem right.

In many ways, HB 163 reinforced a lesson that extends beyond notarizations. Strong procedures are only effective when the people involved understand them, apply them consistently, and take their responsibilities seriously.

Layers of Verification Create Stronger Transactions

Another part of HB 163 that caught my attention involved the duties of settlement agents when reasonably ascertaining the identity of a seller in a real estate transaction. The revised language outlines several methods that may be used, including reviewing identification documents, comparing signatures, reviewing land records, obtaining attorney confirmations, performing credit checks, and asking detailed questions about the property.

What stood out to me was not any single method. It was the concept of layered verification. In a real estate transaction, identity is often reviewed by multiple professionals who are each evaluating the transaction from a different perspective.

A settlement agent may review property records and compare signatures. A title professional may review ownership history and transaction documents. A notary verifies identity, willingness, and awareness at the time of signing. In a remote online notarization, the electronic notary may have additional tools available, such as credential analysis, identity proofing, knowledge-based authentication, or biometric verification, to help establish the signer's identity.

No single safeguard is perfect. The strength comes from multiple professionals performing their roles carefully and independently. The goal is not to eliminate every possible risk. The goal is to reduce uncertainty through multiple layers of verification so everyone involved can have greater confidence in the transaction. That partnership between professionals is one of the strongest protections available in any high-trust transaction.

Final Thoughts

Reading Virginia's approved HB 163 left me with an unexpected takeaway. The conversation surrounding fraud prevention often focuses on what new safeguards should be created. Yet many of Virginia's strongest identity verification standards were already in place.

Personal knowledge and satisfactory evidence of identity may look very different, but both are designed to accomplish the same goal: establishing confidence in a person's identity. One relies on familiarity developed over time. The other relies on documentation, verification, and established procedures. Both exist to reduce uncertainty and help protect the integrity of the transaction.

Document integrity depends on more than a driver's license, a passport, a biometric scan, or a signature. It depends on people, procedures, and multiple professionals performing their responsibilities carefully and consistently. That may be the most important lesson I took away from reading HB 163.

In the next article, I'll examine HB 163's recordkeeping requirements and explore why documentation plays such an important role in trust, accountability, and fraud prevention.

Next in the Series: HB 163 and Recordkeeping: What Virginia Notaries Must Document Starting July 1, 2026 

Monique Edwards-Robinson is a Virginia Electronic Notary Public and owner of MER Notary Services. She specializes in remote online notarization and works with attorneys, title professionals, businesses, and individuals who need secure, compliant document execution. Through her educational content, she helps professionals better understand identity verification, document integrity, and the practical application of Virginia notary law.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Laws and regulations may change, and their application may vary based on specific circumstances. Readers should consult the applicable statutes, regulations, and qualified legal counsel regarding their particular situation.