Harding v. Ja Laur Corp.
315 A.2d 132, 20 Md. App. 209 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A deed created by fraudulently attaching a valid signature, obtained for another purpose, to the deed without the signer's knowledge or consent constitutes a forgery. Such a forged deed is void ab initio and cannot pass valid title, even to a subsequent bona fide purchaser without notice.
Facts:
- An attorney, who was a friend of Lucille M. Harding's deceased husband and acting as an agent for Ja Laur Corporation, approached Harding.
- The attorney represented to Harding that her signature was needed on a paper to straighten out a boundary line.
- On or about April 2, 1970, Harding, placing her complete trust in the attorney, signed the paper he presented.
- Unbeknownst to Harding, her signature was subsequently attached to the first page of a deed.
- This deed purported to convey Harding's interest in a .1517 acre parcel of land to Ja Laur Corporation.
- The parcel provided critical access from a larger tract, in which Ja Laur had a substantial interest, to a public road.
- Ja Laur Corporation later conveyed the property to Macro Housing, Inc., and Montgomery County.
- Harding did not discover the fraudulent conveyance until the summer of 1972, during an IRS audit of her deceased husband's business.
Procedural Posture:
- Lucille M. Harding filed a Bill of Complaint, which was amended three times, against Ja Laur Corporation, Macro Housing, Inc., and Montgomery County in a Maryland trial court.
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the third Amended Bill of Complaint, arguing it failed to state a legally sufficient claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing Harding's case.
- Harding, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
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 fraudulently attaching a person's signature page, obtained for one purpose, to a deed conveying their property constitute a forgery, thus rendering the deed void from its inception?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, J.
Yes, fraudulently attaching a signature page to a deed constitutes a forgery, rendering the deed void. Forgery is not limited to falsely writing a signature but also includes the material alteration of a document with intent to defraud. Attaching a signature, lawfully obtained for one purpose, to a different document, such as a deed the signer never intended to execute, is a material alteration. The court distinguishes between a deed obtained by fraud (which is voidable) and a forged deed (which is void ab initio). A fraudulent deed, where a person is tricked into knowingly signing the actual document, can pass good title to a bona fide purchaser. However, a forged deed is a nullity from its inception and can pass no title at all, because the forger has no title to convey. Therefore, because the complaint alleged facts amounting to forgery, the deed to Ja Laur was void, and it could not pass any title to the subsequent purchasers, Macro Housing and Montgomery County.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the critical distinction between a voidable title (resulting from fraud) and a void title (resulting from forgery) in property law. It establishes that the physical act of moving a genuine signature to a document the signatory never intended to sign is a form of forgery, not merely fraud. This provides stronger protection for original property owners against certain types of deceptive schemes, as it renders the entire chain of title from the forged deed a nullity. The ruling places the risk of loss on subsequent purchasers, even innocent ones, emphasizing their duty to ensure the legitimacy of the title they acquire, as a forged deed offers no legal foundation for ownership.
