Court Opinion

ID: 9662271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:04:25.15642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:34.392655
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
It seems to me that the decision in this case is a triumph of form over substance.
A defective acknowledgment may be cured by a reacknowledgment. See, 1 C.J.S. Acknowledgments § 115 (1936); 1 Am. Jur. 2d Acknowledgments § 110 (1962).
The testimony of the defendants, under oath in open court, established that the execution of the contract was their voluntary act and deed and that they intended it to be effective as a conveyance of their property. They admitted that they were not under duress or the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Their testimony was a reacknowledgment of the contract and cured any prior error or irregularity in the acknowledgment of the contract.