Brock v. Yale Mortgage Corporation
700 S.E.2d 583 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A forged deed is void and cannot transfer title, even to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the forgery; however, a forged signature can become legally binding if the person whose signature was forged subsequently ratifies the act.
Facts:
- In 1987, Jerry Brock and his then-wife, Joyce Brock, purchased a property as tenants in common.
- Joyce Brock was responsible for making mortgage payments but repeatedly defaulted, leading to several foreclosure notices between 1996 and 2001, which she concealed from Jerry Brock.
- In 2001, to secure a new loan in her name only from Yale Mortgage Corporation, Joyce Brock forged Jerry Brock's signature on a quitclaim deed, purporting to transfer his half-interest in the property to her.
- Joyce Brock presented the forged deed to Yale and obtained a $60,000 loan, using the entire property as security.
- A portion of the loan proceeds ($15,460) was used to pay off the original, joint mortgage on the property.
- In 2004, Jerry Brock discovered the forged deed and the Yale loan.
- During their divorce proceedings in August 2004, the Brocks executed a settlement agreement in which Joyce transferred her interest in the property to Jerry.
- The settlement agreement acknowledged a '$50,000 liability on the property' and stated that Joyce Brock would be responsible for its repayment.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry Brock filed suit against Yale Mortgage Corporation and his ex-wife in a Georgia trial court to quiet title and set aside the forged quitclaim deed.
- Yale Mortgage Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a judicial declaration that it held a valid security interest in the entire property.
- The trial court granted Yale's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Yale held an interest in the entire property and was permitted to foreclose.
- Jerry Brock, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lender, who may be a bona fide purchaser for value, acquire a valid security interest in the entirety of a property when the quitclaim deed conveying full title to its borrower was forged, and can the forged deed be validated through the subsequent ratification by the defrauded party?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Hunstein
No, a forged deed is a nullity and cannot convey valid title even to a bona fide purchaser for value, but a question of fact remains for a jury as to whether the forged deed was subsequently ratified. The security deed Joyce Brock executed effectively vested Yale with a security interest in the one-half undivided interest she indisputably held. However, Yale could not acquire an interest in Jerry Brock's half through the forged quitclaim deed, as a forged deed is void and vests no title in a grantee. This principle holds true even if Yale was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the forgery. The court explicitly overrules its prior decisions in Bonner and Mabra to the extent they suggest a bona fide purchaser can acquire title under a forged deed. The case is remanded because a factual issue exists as to whether Jerry Brock ratified the forged deed through the divorce settlement agreement. The agreement's language regarding a 'liability on the property' is ambiguous and requires a jury to determine the parties' intent. Jerry Brock's incidental benefit from the payoff of the prior joint loan does not constitute ratification as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the traditional property law principle that a forged deed is void ab initio and cannot pass title, protecting original owners against fraudulent conveyances. By overruling inconsistent precedents (Bonner and Mabra), the court clarifies Georgia law and removes the possibility that a bona fide purchaser could defeat the claim of a party whose interest was transferred via forgery. The ruling's significance lies in its clear distinction between the invalidity of a forged instrument and the separate equitable doctrine of ratification. This shifts the legal battleground in such cases from the purchaser's good faith to the subsequent actions and intent of the defrauded owner, making summary judgment less likely and pushing such disputes toward a factual determination by a jury.
Unlock the full brief for Brock v. Yale Mortgage Corporation