## Facts

- Jerry Brock and his wife, Joyce Brock, bought a home in Suwanee, Georgia, and held title as co-owners.
- The purchase was financed by a loan secured by a security deed; Brock provided Joyce money to make payments, but Joyce diverted the funds and the loan went into default without Brock’s knowledge.
- Joyce sought a refinance loan from Yale Mortgage Corporation in her name only and presented a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer Brock’s interest to her.
- Brock’s signature on the quitclaim deed was forged, but the deed was recorded and Yale, without knowledge of the forgery, accepted it and took a deed to secure debt from Joyce.
- Brock later discovered the default, the Yale loan, and the forged quitclaim deed, then filed for divorce.
- In a divorce settlement, Joyce transferred her rights in the property to Brock and agreed to indemnify him for liabilities tied to her debts; the agreement also referenced a liability associated with the Yale loan.
- Brock sued to quiet title, set aside the forged quitclaim deed, and set aside or limit Yale’s security deed.
- The trial court granted Yale summary judgment, ruling Yale had a valid security interest in the entire property and could foreclose, reasoning in part that Brock ratified the transaction via the divorce settlement.

## Issues

1. Whether a lender relying on a forged quitclaim deed can obtain a valid security interest in the entire property as a bona fide purchaser (or encumbrancer) for value.
2. Whether Brock’s divorce settlement and related conduct ratified the forged quitclaim deed and Yale loan so as to validate Yale’s security interest in Brock’s undivided interest.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the scope of Yale’s security interest and on ratification.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed in part, holding Yale had a valid security interest in Joyce’s one-half undivided interest.
- The court reversed in part, holding Yale could not obtain a valid security interest in Brock’s one-half undivided interest merely by claiming bona fide purchaser status through a forged deed.
- The court remanded for jury determination on whether Brock ratified the forged deed and loan transaction in the divorce settlement.
- The court held summary judgment was improper as to Brock’s interest because ratification turned on disputed facts about Brock’s knowledge and intent.

## Legal Principles

- A forged deed is void and conveys no title; an innocent purchaser or lender for value cannot acquire rights in the forged-away interest through that deed.
- In a tenancy in common, each co-tenant may convey or encumber only that co-tenant’s own undivided interest absent authorization from the other co-tenant.
- Bona fide purchaser (or encumbrancer) status does not cure a defect that is void rather than voidable, including forgery.
- Ratification requires acceptance of the benefits of an unauthorized act with full knowledge of the material facts; when intent and knowledge are disputed or the alleged ratifying instrument is ambiguous, ratification is for the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court limited Yale’s security deed to Joyce’s undivided one-half interest because a forged quitclaim deed could not transfer Brock’s interest, and it required a jury trial on whether Brock’s divorce settlement and conduct ratified the forged transfer and resulting encumbrance as to his share.


Brock v. Yale Mortg. Corp., 287 Ga. 849, 700 S.E.2d 583 (Ga. 2010)