Banks v. Shaw

4 Citing cases

  1. Lawson v. Lawson

    321 N.C. 274 (N.C. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    Discussing continuing precedential value of Banks

    N.C.G.S. 52-10 (b) (1984). Plaintiff wife argues that the decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with this Court's holding in Banks v. Shaw, 227 N.C. 172, 41 S.E.2d 281 (1947). We agree.

  2. SunTrust Bank v. Abdalqader (In re Abdalqader)

    CASE NO. 12-03661-8-SWH (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Sep. 23, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, the court took pains to differentiate between the record being acknowledged (the lease), and the acknowledgment itself; and, further, to explain how the presumption of regularity attached to a notarization can ensure that a flawed acknowledgment does not work to the detriment of an otherwise properly executed instrument or record. See also Banks v. Shaw, 41 S.E.2d 281, 281 (N.C. 1947) (despite omission of husband's name from notarial acknowledgment, when both husband and wife were grantors, court held that it "appears that the deed of trust was properly executed and acknowledged"); Lawson v. Lawson, 362 S.E.2d 269, 272 (N.C. 1987) (discussing continuing precedential value of Banks). More recently, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina also rejected the notion that a faulty notarization rendered a deed of trust invalid.

  3. In re Gray

    410 B.R. 270 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2009)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a public official had no authority to unilaterally correct a defective mortgage document by altering and rerecording it

    Although not relied upon by WMC, a minority of courts have held that a public official has the authority to correct a certificate of acknowledgment and cause the mortgage to be rerecorded—even without re-acknowledgment—so long as the rights of third parties have not intervened. See Banks v. Shaw, 227 N.C. 172, 41 S.E.2d 281, 281 (1947) ("[T]he notary took the acknowledgment of the grantors ... but inadvertently omitted the name of the husband from his certificate.... [T]he notary [later] amended his certificate to speak the truth, attached it to the deed of trust, and the deed of trust with amended certificate in due form was again registered. No rights of third parties or creditors have intervened.... The certificate could be amended subsequently to speak the truth, no rights of creditors or third parties being involved."); Gropper v. Hoover, 5 N.J. Misc. 649, 137 A. 837, 838 (1927) ("We think there is no legal obstacle in the way of curing a defective acknowledgment, where it can be done without prejudice to the rights of third parties, for such an act rather bespeaks good faith."); see also Jordan v. Corey, 2 Ind. 385, 388 (Ind. 1850).

  4. Estate of Gerke v. Estate of Gerke

    580 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 5 times

    The court determined that the statutory requirement that the separation agreement be "acknowledged" referred only to the formal declaration by the person executing a document, and concluded that the requirements of the statute had been satisfied without the attachment of a certificate. Id; See also Banks v. Shaw (1947), 227 N.C. 172, 41 S.E.2d 281; Freeman v. Morrison (1938), 214 N.C. 240, 199 S.E. 12. In determining which approach to adopt, we look to other parts of IC 29-1-3-3(a) for legislative intent.