City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Metcalf
775 P.2d 1065, 36 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 14, 161 Ariz. 1 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A notary's negligent notarization of a forged signature can be the proximate cause of damages if the notarization was a necessary step for the fraudulent transaction to occur, regardless of whether the forger had an independent legal power to encumber their own interest in the property.
Facts:
- Bruce Vickers and Jane Vickers owned a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- On October 16, 1981, Bruce Vickers brought a woman he falsely introduced as his wife, Jane, to the office of notary Harold Metcalf.
- Bruce presented a quitclaim deed with a forged signature purporting to be Jane's, which would transfer her interest in the house to him.
- Metcalf notarized the forged signature based solely on Bruce's introduction, without asking for identification or requiring the woman to acknowledge the signature.
- Using the fraudulently notarized deed, Bruce Vickers obtained a $60,000 loan from City Consumer Services (City), secured by a deed of trust on the entire property.
- Testimony established that lending institutions, including City, had a policy against lending money on only an undivided one-half interest in a joint tenancy.
- The Vickers later divorced, and the dissolution decree awarded Jane Vickers full ownership of the residence.
- Bruce Vickers defaulted on the loan, and his whereabouts became unknown.
Procedural Posture:
- City Consumer Services (City) and Jane Vickers each filed claims against Harold Metcalf in an Arizona trial court for negligent notarization.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $10,000 to City and $50,000 to Jane Vickers.
- Metcalf, as appellant, appealed the verdicts to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for City but reversed the $50,000 award to Jane Vickers, as appellee.
- Jane Vickers petitioned the Supreme Court of Arizona for review of the court of appeals' decision reversing her award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a notary's negligent notarization of a forged signature on a deed a proximate cause of the non-signing co-owner's damages, even if the forging co-owner had the independent legal power to encumber their own interest in the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Feldman, Vice Chief Justice
Yes, a notary's negligent notarization can be the proximate cause of damages under these circumstances. The court found that while Bruce Vickers may have had the legal power to encumber his own one-half interest, the evidence showed he lacked the practical ability to do so because lenders would not finance a loan on a partial property interest. Metcalf's notarization was the essential step that enabled Bruce to perpetrate the fraud on the lender, making his negligence a cause-in-fact of Jane's ultimate loss. But for Metcalf's notarization, Bruce would not have received the loan, the property would not have been encumbered, and Jane would have received the entire property in the divorce as decreed. The court also affirmed that Metcalf's conduct was negligent as it violated the statutory duty for a notary to have 'satisfactory evidence' of the signer's identity, reasoning that an introduction by a 'casual acquaintance' is insufficient as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a notary's role is not merely ministerial and that their negligence can be a direct and foreseeable cause of significant financial harm. It establishes that 'causation' can be proven by showing that the notary's act was a practical prerequisite for the harm, even if theoretical alternatives existed for the wrongdoer. This precedent raises the standard of care for notaries, cautioning them against relying on informal introductions and customs that fall below statutory requirements. For future cases, it makes it more difficult for a negligent notary to escape liability by arguing their action was not the sole or most direct cause of the plaintiff's injury.
