# United States Court of A ppe als Fo r the Eighth Circuit

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___
No. 1 7-2439

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Cy nth ia Be ck le r, form erl y

kno wn a s C y

nth ia Ro ers

Plai nti ff - Appe lla nt

v.

Ba nk o f Am eri ca

De fe ndan t - Ap

pe lle e

____ ____ ____ Appe al from

Uni te d Sta te s Di stri ct

Co urt for the Dis tric t of M inn es ota - Mi nne ap oli s

____ ____ ____ Subm itt ed : No ve m

be r 13, 2 018 File d: J an ua ry 30, 2019 [Unpub lis he d]

____ ____ ____
Be fore C OLLOTO N, SHEPHER D, a nd STR AS, C irc uit

Jud ge s.

____ ____ ____
STRAS, C irc uit

Jud ge

.

This is an ap pe al from a be nc h tria l in a qui et -tit le ac tio n ch al le ng in g the

va lid ity of thre e m ortga ge s he ld by Ba nk of Am eri ca

. The dis tric t co urt 1

The Hono rabl e John R. Tunh ei m , Ch ie f Judg e, Unit ed Sta te s Dist ric t Co urt for 1 the Dis tric t of M inn es ota

.co nc lud ed tha t the m ortga ge s we re pr op er ly ex ec ute d an d en force ab le
, an d we

affirm

.

Cy nth ia Be ck le r m arrie d Ala n Ro ers in 2005

. At the tim e, she ow ned thre e
prope rtie s: one loc at ed on King swoo d Ro ad in Mi nne tris ta , Mi nne sot a, an d two oth ers on Be nto n Ave nue in Edin a, Mi nne sota. The co upl e ini tia lly liv ed tog et he r
at the King swoo d Ro ad pr op er ty, w hich Be ck le r co nve y ed to Ro ers to cre at e joi nt

owne rship

.

A few m ont

hs la te r, the co upl e de ci de d to purc ha se a ne w ho me on a forty

ac re ranc h. Afte r ne got ia tio ns en de d, Ro ers sig ne d a purc ha se ag ree ment f or just

ove r four m ill ion dol la

rs, but he co uld not ob ta in fina nc ing wit hout Be ck le r’s he lp. She co nveyed the Be nto n Ave nue prope rtie s to Ro ers , ag ai n cre at ing joi nt

owne rship
, an d the n use d the eq uit y in al l thre e prope r ti es as co lla te ral

. To

co m ple te the tra nsa ct ion
, Be ck le r sig ne d form s gran tin g Ro ers ’s at torne y the

powe r to en te r int o m ortga ge s on the co upl e’ s be half

. Th e en d res ult wa s tha t the

co upl e owne d the ranc h an d ha d ta ke n out m ortga ge s on the King swoo d Ro ad an d
Be nto n Ave nue prope rtie s to ta lin g ov er $ 1.1 m ill ion

.

Be ck le r, now div orce d from Ro ers , se ek s to unwi nd thes e tr an sa ct ion s. She brough t a qui et -tit le ac tio n ag ai nst Ba nk of Am eri ca , whic h hol ds the mor tgage s on the thre e prope rtie s, an d cl ai m ed tha t Ro ers forged he r sig na ture s on the de ed s an d

powe r-of-att orne y f

orm s an d the n pres sure d a not ary to ce rtify the m wit hout he r
pres en t. The dis tric t co ur t he ld a benc h tria l, found tha t the sig na ture s we re

au the nti c an d prop erl y

not ari ze d, a

nd g rant ed

jud gm en t t o B an k of Am eri ca

.

W e revi ew a dis tric t co urt’ s fac tua l findi ngs for cl ea r er ror. Ec ke rt v. Titan
Tire Co rp. , 514 F.3d 801, 804 (8th Ci r. 2008 ). Unde r thi s de fere nti al sta nda rd of revi ew , we wil l reve rse onl y if we ha ve a “ de finit e an d firm co nvi ct ion th at a

m ist ak e ha s be en co m

m itt ed .” Ande rso n v. Ci ty of Be sse me r Ci ty , 470 U.S. 564,
573 (1985) (ci ta ti on om itt ed ). Our de fere nc e is “ ev en grea te r” whe n, as in thi s

-2-ca se , the co urt rel ie d on “ de te rm ina tio ns rega rding the cre dib ili ty of wit ne sse s,” be ca use onl y it ca

n se e an d he ar “ the va

ria tio ns in de m ea

nor an d to ne of voi ce tha t be ar s o he av ily

on” c redi bil ity

. Id. a t 57 5.

The dis tric t co urt did not cl ea rly err whe n it found that th e signa ture s we re

au the nti c. In oth er le ga l proc ee din gs, Bec kl er ha s ac know le dge d the m ortga ge s

an d ev en fram ed he r le ga l the orie s arou nd the m

. In 2007
, for ex am ple
, the co upl e

sue d in sta

te co urt on th e gr ou nd tha t the se lle r ha d al le ge dly m isre pres en te d the

ranc h’ s lot size. D ur in g a he ari ng, Be ck le r te sti fie d tha t m ortga ge s we re put on the King swoo d an d Be nto n Ave nue prope rtie s. The co upl e’ s 2009 div orce de cre e lik ew ise sta

te d tha t Be ck le r “ co nt r ib ut ed $1,1 50,0 00 of he r nonm ari ta l prope rty to the down pa

y m en t on the [ranc h] by obtai nin g a m ortga ge on he r nonm ari ta l rea l

prope rty .” Fina lly
, in a 2010 fede ral la w suit brough t by Be ck le r an d Ro ers , the

co m pla int sta te d tha t Be ck le r “ de ci de d to pla ce a m ortga ge on he r two nonm ari ta l

prop ertie s in orde r to qua lify [for] fina nc [ing] .” (Em

pha sis ad de d). This his tory

ca sts doub t on Be ck le r’s ne we st the ory an d provi de s am ple supp ort for the co urt’ s findi ng.

The di st r ic t co urt al so did not cl ea rly err whe n it found tha t the sig na ture s

we re prope rly not arized

. At tria l, the not ary te sti fie d tha t his “ sig na ture an d

. . . st amp” w ere on the doc um en ts. And al tho ugh he co uld not spe ci fic al ly rem em be r ,
over te n y ea

rs la te r, whe the r Be ck le r ha d sig ne d the doc um en ts in his pr es en ce, he

co uld thi nk of no “ rea son w hy [ he ] woul d not ha ve follo we d [his norm al

not ari za tio n] proc es s

. . . wit

h rega r d to [ th e] doc um en t[s] .” The co urt ex pli ci tly credi te d thi s te sti m ony , an d Be ck le r poi nts to no ev ide nc e tha t de m an ds a co ntra ry

co nc lus ion

. Se e id. ; se e als o id. at 57 4 (“ W he re the re are two pe rm iss ibl e vie ws of the e vid en ce , th e fac tfind er’ s c hoi ce be twe en the m c an not be c le arl y

e rroneo us.” ).

Be ck le r poi nts to ev idenc e supp ortin g he r cl ai m s, to be sure , but not hin g

cre at es a “ de finit e an d f

ir m co nvi ct ion tha t a m ist ak e ha s be en co m m itt ed .” Id. at 573 (ci ta tio n om itt ed ). Fo r ex ampl e, Be ck le r stre sse s tha t Ro ers ad

m itt ed at tria l

-3-tha t he forged the doc um en ts. Bu t the dis tric t co urt did not be li ev e Ro ers , an d we

owe “ grea

t[] de fere nc e” to the co urt’s ob se r va tio ns of his “ de m ea nor an d ton e of voi ce .” Id. at 575. Plus, the co urt ha d oth er rea sons to be ske ptical of Ro ers, a

se lf-proc la im ed frauds te r who, al ong wit h Bec kle r, ha d al rea dy ch al le nge d the

purc ha se from

diffe rent a ngl es ove r m

ult ipl e rounds of li tig at ion

.

Be ck le r’s ot he r argu m en ts run the ga m ut from unpe rsua siv e to m isl ea din g. She as se rts, for ins tanc e, th at sh e co uld not ha ve be en wit h the not ary on the da

y the doc um en ts we re sig ne d be ca use she ha d a doc tor’ s ap poi ntm en t, but she fai ls to

ex pla in how the ap poi ntm en t prev en te d he r f r om sig nin g the m in the not ary ’s

pres en ce ea

rlie r or la te r in the da

y

. Be ck le r al so argu es tha t he r “ ha ndwrit ing

sa m ple ” doe s not m at ch the sig natures on the doc um en ts, whic h in he r vie w prove s fraud. It is true tha t the ha ndwrit ing sa

m pl e be ar s lit

tle res em bla nc e to he r sig na ture s on the doc um en ts, but he r argu m en t is de ce pti ve be ca

use the sa m

ple
, whic h is in blo ck print an d wa s m ad e in an tic ipa tio n of lit iga tio n, is not he r sig na ture

. Inste ad
, Be ck le r’s ac tua l sig na ture s, f ou nd on doc um en ts ev ery one
ag ree s ar e ge nui ne , loo k lik e the sig na ture s she ch al le nge s he re. This sle igh t-ofha ndwrit ing c an

not ge t he r the rel ie f she se ek s.

W e affirm

the jud gm en t of t

he dis tric t c ourt.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge, concurs in the judgment.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __

-4-