## Facts

- In 2008, Jeffrey Scheible inherited a Pembroke Pines, Florida home from his deceased sister, Joyce Johnson.
- Scheible allowed Joyce’s daughter, Janice Johnson, to live in the home rent-free if she paid expenses; Janice lived there with her boyfriend, Audley Livingston Brown.
- About two years later, Scheible executed a quitclaim deed transferring the property to Janice.
- Janice died intestate in June 2015, and Scheible became the personal representative of her estate.
- Scheible later discovered that Brown had sold the property to third-party purchasers in October 2015, even though Scheible believed Brown had never owned the property.
- An investigation showed a quitclaim deed dated February 9, 2015, purportedly transferring the property from Janice to Brown and bearing Janice’s signature.
- That February 2015 quitclaim deed was notarized by Nea Richardson, a notary public, and recorded on July 8, 2015—after Janice’s death.
- A “corrective deed” was recorded on July 28, 2015; it appeared to be the same quitclaim deed with a longer legal description attached, and it was not re-executed or re-notarized.
- Scheible, on behalf of the estate, sued multiple parties, including Richardson, alleging Richardson negligently notarized the deed despite Janice’s absence and without properly confirming the signer’s identity.
- The estate presented evidence at trial that the February 2015 deed was forged, including handwriting testimony, and the jury found for the estate, awarding $247,000 in damages.
- Richardson moved for a new trial, arguing her conduct was not a proximate cause of the estate’s loss because the deed was forged (and thus void) and, as the trial court concluded, had an invalid legal description.
- The trial court granted a new trial on the theory that proximate cause was not proven as a matter of law, and Scheible appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the notary’s negligent notarization was not a proximate cause of the estate’s damages because the deed was forged (void) and allegedly defective in its legal description.

## Decision

- The Fourth District reversed the order granting a new trial.
- The court held that Richardson’s notarization allowed the forged deed to be recorded and was therefore a proximate cause of the estate’s damages.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the reversal (effectively restoring the jury’s determination of liability and damages).

## Legal Principles

- Proximate cause generally presents a fact question for the jury when reasonable people could differ on whether the defendant’s conduct contributed to the harm.
- A negligent notarization can be a proximate cause of loss when it enables recordation of an instrument that is then used to convey apparent title and trigger a later transfer.
- The fact that a deed is void due to forgery does not, by itself, defeat causation where the negligent notarization made the fraudulent instrument capable of being recorded and used in a subsequent transaction.
- A trial court may not set aside a supported jury verdict based on a legal conclusion that eliminates causation when the evidence permits a finding that the negligent act helped bring about the loss.

## Conclusion

The Fourth District reversed the new-trial order, holding that the notary’s negligent notarization could be found to have caused the estate’s damages because it enabled the forged deed to be recorded and used to facilitate the later sale of the property.


Scheible v. Brown, 333 So. 3d 726 (2022)