Opinion ID: 889153
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Forged Signature Ratification

Text: ¶ 29 Within the law of agency it is generally accepted that a principal may ratify the forgery of his signature by his agent. Rakestraw v. Rodrigues, 8 Cal.3d 67, 104 Cal.Rptr. 57, 500 P.2d 1401, 1405 (1972) (quotation omitted); See also Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 85, Cmt. B (1957) (if one impersonates another ... or executes or delivers an instrument purportedly signed by another, the rationale of ratification is applicable and the act or transaction can be ratified by affirmance if it does not involve an illegal agreement.); see also Ferguson v. Bishop, 150 Ga.App. 469, 258 S.E.2d 143, 145 (1979) (ratification of a forged signature relates back to the act ratified and takes effect as if originally authorized); Atlas Bldg. Supply Co. v. First Indep. Bank of Vancouver, 15 Wash.App. 367, 550 P.2d 26 (1976) (an unauthorized signature may be ratified); Hefner v. Vandolah, 62 Ill. 483, 485 (1872) (a forged signature on a promissory note may be ratified); Cook v. Great W. Bank & Trust, 141 Ariz. 80, 685 P.2d 145, 149 (App.1984) ([w]hether there has been ratification of a forged signature is usually a question of fact.). ¶ 30 In the forged signature context, it has likewise been held that where a prior agency relationship did not exist, a subsequent ratification of the forgery creates an agency relationship. The California Supreme Court has explained that the ratification of an act of forgery by one held out to be a principal creates an agency relationship between such person and the purported agent and relieves the agent of civil liability to the principal which otherwise would result from the fact that he acted independently and without authority. Rakestraw, 104 Cal.Rptr. 57, 500 P.2d at 1405. Similarly, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that a previous agency relationship is not necessary for ratification of a forged signature to occur, but rather, an agency relationship is implied after ratification. Hefner, 62 Ill. at 485. Even those jurisdictions which generally do not permit ratification of forged signatures have nonetheless accepted ratification of a forgery where estoppel applies. Compare Shinew v. First Nat'l Bank, 84 Ohio St. 297, 95 N.E. 881 (1911) (stating that a forgery cannot be ratified) with Workman v. Wright, 33 Ohio St. 405, 408 (1889) (explaining that ratification of forgery is allowed under principles of promissory estoppel); see also Bank of Commerce of Louisville v. McCarty, 119 Neb. 795, 231 N.W. 34, 38 (1930) (a forgery cannot be ratified without estoppel or new consideration). We have not restricted application of the doctrine to cases involving estoppel or new consideration, but have entertained the doctrine in other contexts. See Moore, 242 Mont. at 222-23, 789 P.2d at 1240-41.