## Facts

- Elizabeth Esterline owned certain Los Angeles County real property.
- Stanley Scott Singley caused a deed to be recorded purporting to convey Esterline’s property to Frank N. Debbas; Esterline’s signature on that deed was forged and she received no consideration.
- Glen E. Plumb, a notary public, executed a false acknowledgment of the forged signature; Plumb was bonded by United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. with a $5,000 penal sum.
- Debbas deeded the property (without consideration) to Singley, and Singley later deeded it to Jack W. and Patricia L. McDonald for consideration.
- In a bench trial, the court quieted title in Esterline against Singley and the McDonalds, awarded the McDonalds $21,063.51 plus costs against Singley, dismissed the action as to Debbas, and denied the McDonalds recovery against Plumb and the surety.
- The trial court found Plumb’s false acknowledgment was not an “efficient or any other cause” of the McDonalds’ damages, reasoning that Singley’s fraud alone caused the loss and the McDonalds did not actually rely on the acknowledgment when purchasing.

## Issues

1. Whether the false notarial acknowledgment of the forged Esterline-to-Debbas deed was, as a matter of law, a proximate cause of the McDonalds’ loss despite the McDonalds’ lack of direct reliance on the acknowledgment.
2. Whether the notary and the surety on the notary bond may be held liable to subsequent purchasers whose loss was facilitated by recording a forged deed bearing a false acknowledgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the judgment denying recovery against Plumb and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.
- The court held the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding the false acknowledgment was not a proximate cause of the McDonalds’ damages.
- The matter was remanded with directions to enter judgment for the McDonalds against Plumb and the surety within the limits of the $5,000 bond (and appropriate costs).

## Legal Principles

- A notary public may be liable for damages proximately caused by an official act of misconduct, including falsely acknowledging a forged signature on a deed.
- Direct, subjective reliance by the injured party on the acknowledgment itself is not required to establish proximate cause where the false acknowledgment enabled recording and contributed to an apparently valid chain of title.
- A wrongdoer’s intervening fraud does not necessarily sever causation; multiple acts may concurrently operate as proximate causes of a plaintiff’s loss.
- A notary’s surety is liable, up to the penal sum of the bond, for losses proximately caused by the notary’s breach of official duty.

## Conclusion

The court held that a false notarial acknowledgment that enables recording of a forged deed can be a proximate cause of a subsequent purchaser’s loss even without direct reliance on the acknowledgment, requiring judgment against the notary and the surety within the bond’s penal limit.


McDonald v. Plumb, 12 Cal. App. 3d 374 (Ct. App. 1970)