## Facts

- Bruce and Jane Vickers bought a residence in 1975 as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- In 1981, Bruce brought a woman to attorney-notary Harold Metcalf, representing she was Jane; she was not.
- Bruce presented a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer Jane’s interest to Bruce; the deed bore a forged “Jane” signature.
- Metcalf notarized the deed without verifying the woman’s identity, without confirming she signed, and without obtaining her acknowledgment; he relied only on Bruce’s representation.
- Using the recorded, notarized deed, Bruce obtained a \$60,000 loan from City Consumer Services secured by a deed of trust on the residence; Jane did not know of the loan and received none of the proceeds.
- Bruce and Jane divorced in 1984; the decree awarded Jane the residence, which she believed to be unencumbered.
- Bruce defaulted and disappeared; City pursued foreclosure.
- Litigation limited the trustee’s sale to an undivided one-half interest (the portion Bruce could have encumbered absent the divorce decree), and Jane paid \$50,000 to regain the remaining interest.
- A jury found Metcalf negligent and awarded City \$10,000 (remaining loss on its loan) and Jane \$50,000 (to repurchase the balance of the house from City).

## Issues

1. What duty does a notary public have to verify identity and obtain an acknowledgment when notarizing a deed, and did Metcalf breach that duty?
2. Whether a notary’s duty of reasonable care extends to foreseeable third parties, including lenders and an innocent co-owner.
3. Whether Metcalf’s negligent notarization proximately caused City’s lending loss and Jane’s loss of receiving full, unencumbered ownership under the divorce decree.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held Metcalf was negligent for failing to comply with statutory notarization requirements, including identity verification and acknowledgment.
- The court held the notary’s duty extends to foreseeable third parties who reasonably rely on the notarial certificate, including City and Jane.
- The court affirmed the \$10,000 judgment for City.
- The court reversed the court of appeals’ decision that had set aside Jane’s \$50,000 verdict and reinstated the trial court’s judgment for Jane.

## Legal Principles

- A notary’s central function is to authenticate the signer’s identity and certify that the signer acknowledged the signature as a voluntary act.
- Failure to obtain a proper acknowledgment and satisfactory evidence of identity constitutes negligent notarization when a notary certifies a signature on a deed.
- A notary’s duty of reasonable care is not limited to the immediate presenter of the document; it extends to members of the public who are foreseeable and intended users of the notarial certificate in property transactions.
- Proximate cause is satisfied where negligent notarization is a substantial factor enabling a forged conveyance to appear valid, inducing a lender to extend credit or causing an innocent co-owner’s title to be impaired.
- In assessing causation and damages, the focus is on the actual loss produced by the reliance-based chain of events enabled by the false notarization, not merely on the theoretical ability of a joint tenant to encumber a fractional interest.

## Conclusion

The court held that negligent notarization of a forged deed, including failure to verify identity and obtain an acknowledgment, breaches a notary’s statutory and common-law duties and creates liability to foreseeable third parties—such as lenders and innocent co-owners—when the notarization enables reliance that proximately causes financial loss.


City Consumer Services, Inc. v. Metcalf, 161 Ariz. 1, 775 P.2d 1065 (Ariz. 1989)