Opinion ID: 2310940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: What Is Required?

Text: The cases involving the adequacy of acknowledgments fall into two broad categoriesthose involving the sufficiency of the notary's certificate, i.e., whether facially it complies with the requirements of the applicable statute, and those involving the accuracy of the certificate, i.e., whether the fact or event attested to actually occurred. The cases in the first category are more numerous and involve such things as a blank where the name of the grantor should be ( Thomas v. Davis, 241 Ala.271, 2 So.2d 616 (1941)), a failure to state the expiration date of the notary's commission ( Kelley v. Carter, 216 Ark.491, 226 S.W.2d 53 (1950)), equivocation as to the notary's knowledge of grantor's identity ( Lindley v. Lindley, 92 Tex.446, 49 S.W.573 (1899), Kenley v. Robb, 245 S.W. 68 (Tex. Comm'n App.1922)), and the failure to state clearly that the grantor personally appeared. Powers v. Hatter, 152 Ala. 636, 44 So. 859 (1907). See generally Annotation, Sufficiency of Certificate of Acknowledgment, 25 A.L.R.2d 1124 (1952) and Annotation, Sufficiency of Certificate of Acknowledgment, 29 A.L.R. 919 (1924). We are not concerned here with deficiencies of that kind. Mr. Clofine's certificates are facially sufficient. Most of the cases in the second category deal with situations in which the person whom the notary certified as having appeared did not, in fact, appear, or allegedly did not appear. They have arisen in at least two different contextsa suit for damages against the notary for falsely certifying that the grantor appeared, and an action to invalidate the conveyance or instrument. The cases present a variety of factual situations, from taking an actual acknowledgment from an imposter ( Barnard v. Schuler, 100 Minn. 289, 110 N.W.966 (1907); Hatton v. Holmes, 97 Cal. 208, 31 P. 1131 (1893); Anderson v. Aronsohn, 63 Cal.App. 737, 219 P. 1017 (1923); Lowe v. Wright, 40 Tenn.App. 525, 292 S.W.2d 413 (1956); Meyers v. Meyers, 81 Wash.2d 533, 503 P.2d 59 (1972)), to taking an acknowledgment over the telephone ( Oswald v. Newbanks, 336 Ill.490, 168 N.E.340 (1929)), to a grantor's signing the instrument in another room, not in the presence of the notary ( Christensen v. Arant, 218 Neb.625, 358 N.W.2d 200 (1984)). These cases do establish an affirmative duty on the part of the notary (1) to require the actual presence of the grantor, and (2) to assure himself or herself that the person appearing and purporting to be the grantor is who he or she claims to be. Section 5 of article 18 now establishes that as a statutory duty. As with the first category, we are not concerned here with this kind of deficiency. Ethel has never contended that the power of attorney was not signed by Bernard in Mr. Clofine's presence or that the deed was not signed by Glenda in his presence. That part of the certificate attesting that Bernard or Glenda personally appeared before Mr. Clofine, in other words, is unchallenged. The issue, then, is whether a certificate that the person appearing acknowledged the foregoing deed to be his [or her] act, as prescribed in § 4-204 of the Real Property article, or that he or she acknowledged that [he or she] executed the same for the purposes contained therein, as prescribed in § 7 of article 18, can rest on the notary's observations and general impressions or whether it requires some sort of affirmative declaration by the grantor. There are only a few cases on this point. In McQuatt v. McQuatt, 320 Mass. 410, 69 N.E.2d 806 (1946), the children of a deceased grantor sued to set aside a deed through which their father had conveyed certain real estate to his then-wife, the children's stepmother. The initial claim was that the grantor was of unsound mind and that the deed was procured by undue influence. The deed was executed in the hospital about eight hours before the grantor died. The attorney who prepared the deed had earlier discussed it with the grantor in order to assure himself that the grantor was competent, but the attorney was not present when the deed was signed. The wife presented the deed to her husband and, in the presence of the notary, asked him if he knew what he was about to do. He said that he did, that he was turning his property over to his wife, and he then executed the deed with the assistance of the notary. Notwithstanding this evidence and some uncertainty as to whether the issue had even been raised in the trial court, [4] the Court found the deed void for want of a proper acknowledgment, apparently on the ground that the grantor made no verbal declaration after signing the deed. At 810, the Court stated: An acknowledgment is the formal statement of the grantor to the official authorized to take the acknowledgment that the execution of the instrument was his free act and deed. No particular words are necessary as long as they amount to an admission that he has voluntarily and freely executed the instrument. [Citations omitted].[ [5] ] In the instant case, there is no finding that McQuatt, after he signed the deed, ever said a word to the one who made out the certificate of acknowledgment. On the other hand, there is an express finding that he did not say anything indicating that he acknowledged the instrument as his free act and deed. (Emphasis added). So far as we can tell, only Massachusetts and Texas have imposed such a requirement, and the Texas case is somewhat unusual. In Punchard v. Masterson, 100 Tex. 479, 101 S.W. 204 (1907), the sufficiency of a notary's certificate on a deed was challenged. Under an 1841 statute, deeds were entitled to be recorded upon the acknowledgment of the party or parties before the register, or chief justice of the county. Nothing was said in the statute about the form or method of the acknowledgment. An 1846 statute required of an acknowledgment that the grantor appear and affirmatively state that he had executed the deed for the consideration and purposes stated therein. The deed in question was executed in 1841; the acknowledgment stated only that the grantor had appeared and signed the instrument in the notary's presence after reading and examining it. The court, in effect, read into the 1841 statute the specific requirement of a verbal declaration set forth in the 1846 law. The court never considered whether any such declaration was made by the grantor but invalidated the deed because the certificate itself was insufficient. In Picetti v. Orcio, 57 Nev. 52, 58 P.2d 1046 (1936), reh'g, 57 Nev. 52, 67 P.2d 315 (1937), a mortgage was purportedly signed by a husband and wife, although the wife later insisted that she had not signed the mortgage. She also claimed that the notary who certified her signature never actually took her acknowledgment. The notary testified that the husband signed the mortgage and note in his office but, when told that his wife also needed to sign, stated that the wife was unable to come in to sign them. The notary said that he then took the mortgage and note to the wife's home, exhibited them to her and told her that they needed her signature, that she took the documents into the house and brought them back with her signature attached, saying that she knew all about them, and that he thereafter certified her signature. Reversing a judgment that the mortgage was invalid, the Nevada Supreme Court noted that, based on the notary's testimony, the wife, strictly speaking, did not acknowledge that she had signed the mortgage. The fact that she handed him the document with her signature on it, however, and said she knew all about it were enough to bind her. 58 P.2d at 1051. That aspect of the decision was confirmed in the subsequent opinion issued upon reconsideration. 67 P.2d at 315. In effect, the Court held that conduct could suffice to constitute an acknowledgment. That view was adopted, in an even clearer fashion, in Waitt Bros. Land, Inc. v. Montange, 257 N.W.2d 516 (Iowa 1977). At issue there was a contract for the sale of a farm. The sellers were an elderly couple. When the contract was submitted, the wife signed her name and, in her husband's presence, with his consent, and consistent with past practice, signed that of her husband. Several days later, a notary took the contract to the sellers' home, informed them that she was there to notarize their signatures, and showed them the contract. Neither of the sellers disclaimed the signatures or objected to her notarizing them, which she did. There was no evidence of a lack of mental capacity or undue influence. The sellers refused to implement the contract and defended a suit for specific performance on the ground that the husband had not signed the contract. The buyer argued that the husband had acknowledged the contract before the notary, to which the sellers responded that there was no acknowledgment because the husband had made no statement formally acknowledging his wife's signature on his behalf. In holding that there had been a sufficient acknowledgment, and therefore a valid contract, the Court cited and discussed McQuatt but decided to follow Picetti instead. At 520, the Court stated: As indicated above, McQuatt suggests that the person making the acknowledgment must make a declaration in order to have a valid acknowledgment, while Picetti leaves open the possibility that conduct by the party before an officer can lead to a valid acknowledgment of the instrument. The position of defendants goes against the principles giving great weight to notarial certificates and the principle that a party contending an instrument is invalid must prove by clear and convincing evidence that contention is correct. Under the definition of an acknowledgment, according to Am.Jur.2d ... all that is required for a valid one is that the person make an admission that he has executed the instrument. To say that he can only admit that by making a verbal declaration to that effect and cannot demonstrate the fact by his conduct before the notary is to dignify form over substance. An admission by conduct (in this case by silence) and his other actions before the notary, is not a new principle and has been applied in the evidence field repeatedly. [Citation omitted]. We therefore adopt the Picetti view and carry it to its logical conclusion by finding and holding that conduct before a notary can constitute an admission which is requisite for due execution and proper acknowledgment of an instrument. That view has been adopted in North Carolina as well. In Lawson v. Lawson, 321 N.C. 274, 362 S.E.2d 269 (1987), the issue was the validity of a separation agreement, which, under North Carolina law, was required to be signed and acknowledged. The parties appeared before a notary, whom they knew to be a notary, and signed the agreement in his presence. The notary did not inquire whether the signatures were voluntary, and that omission formed one of the grounds of attack on the agreement by the husband. The Court rejected the argument that there had been no acknowledgment. 362 S.E.2d at 272, it held: Defendant, in signing the separation agreement in the presence of the notary, performed acts sufficient to qualify as an acknowledgment under the statute. Since the signing was in the presence of the notary, it was unnecessary for defendant to state to the notary the fact of the execution of the instrument as his voluntary act. Nebraska has also articulated that line of reasoning, although, under the facts of the two cases, the instruments at issue were held not to be properly acknowledged. In Trowbridge v. Bisson, 153 Neb. 389, 44 N.W.2d 810 (1950), the question was whether a real estate contract had been validly acknowledged. The sellers signed the contract in the presence of the real estate agent, who happened to be a notary, but they were unaware that he was a notary or that he was there to take an acknowledgment. The notary did not attach his certificate until some time later, after he had left the sellers' home. On those facts, the Court held that there had been no acknowledgment. It did, however, announce and apply the following rule: [I]t is generally the rule that if the party executing such an instrument knows that he is before an officer having authority to take acknowledgments, understands that such officer is present for the purpose of taking his acknowledgment, intends to then do whatever is necessary to make the instrument effective, and the acknowledging officer's official certificate is attached thereto, then such acknowledgment, in the absence of fraud, will be conclusive in favor of those who in good faith rely upon it. Id., 44 N.W.2d at 812. See also Christensen v. Arant, supra, 358 N.W.2d 200. In Wayne Bldg. & Loan Co. v. Hoover, 12 Ohio St.2d 62, 231 N.E.2d 873 (1967), a husband and wife signed a mortgage in the presence of the notary. No words were spoken by the notary or by the mortgagors; they simply were asked to sign the loan contract and mortgage at the places indicated, and ... they did so sign their names in the presence of [the notary].... Id., 231 N.E.2d at 875. The Ohio statute required, for a valid mortgage, that it be signed by the mortgagor and that such signing must be acknowledged by the [mortgagor] ... in the presence of two witnesses.... Id. Noting that the statute required only an acknowledgment as to the signing, the Court held that where a witness has seen the signing, there has necessarily been an `acknowledgment' of such `signing' by the signer in his presence. Id. at 876. Some of these cases, in terms of both pronouncements and outcome, are controlled by the specific language of a governing statute. If a statute requires a verbal declaration for a valid acknowledgment, the absence of such a declaration may well be fatal. Where, as in Maryland, there is no such statutory mandate, however, we think that the Massachusetts approach is unnecessarily rigid and formalistic. We follow instead the lead of the Iowa Court in Waitt Bros. Land, Inc., supra, 257 N.W.2d 516, and hold that an acknowledgment for purposes of §§ 4-101 and 4-204 of the Real Property article and §§ 5 and 7 of art. 18 does not require an oral declaration but may arise from circumstances and conduct. Specifically, we hold that, although a clear oral expression is preferable because it provides direct evidence of the signatory's knowledge and intent, when a signatory (1) appears personally before a notary for the purpose of having the notary witness and attest to his or her signature, (2) the signatory appears to be alert and is under no apparent duress or undue emotional or intoxicating influence, (3) it is clear from the overall circumstances that the signatory understands the nature of the instrument he or she is about to sign, and (4) he or she signs the instrument in the presence of the notary with the apparent intent of making the instrument effective, the signatory is effectively acknowledging to the notary that the instrument is being signed voluntarily and for the purpose contained therein. We reach this conclusion largely for the reasons stated by the Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Ohio Courts. It is consistent with what we understand to be common practice; it is consistent with the view, generally accepted in the law, that intent may be established circumstantially and by conduct; and it gives appropriate credence to notary's certificates that are regular and sufficient on their face. Requiring some sort of oral declaration would, at best, be of only marginal assistance in preventing fraud. An imposter willing to forge someone's signature to a deed would not likely be deterred by having to make a brief, innocuous statement before a notary public; nor would a signatory actually subject to real duress or undue influence likely balk at making such a statement. If such fraud, duress, or undue influence can be proven, the instrument would be set aside for that reason; the lack of an oral declaration is unnecessary for that purpose. What such a requirement might do, however, is encourage lawsuits to upset instruments simply because of noncompliance with that requirement, even when the transaction was otherwise perfectly valid, and thus put at substantial risk the trust and confidence necessarily reposed in the land records. For these reasons, we hold that the Court of Special Appeals erred in affirming the summary judgment entered on Counts I and II of Ethel's complaint. The case will be remanded for further proceedings on all counts of Ethel's complaint and on Glenda's counterclaim. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED AS TO COUNTS I AND II AND OTHERWISE AFFIRMED. CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AS TO COUNTS I THROUGH V OF ETHEL'S COMPLAINT AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION ON ALL COUNTS OF ETHEL'S COMPLAINT AND ON GLENDA'S COUNTERCLAIM. RESPONDENT TO PAY THE COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS.