JOAN GARDNER, APPELLANT,
v.
ELLEN A. WEILER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A notary public was held liable by a jury for fraud damages in a real estate transaction where the buyer (the seller's lawyer) fraudulently conveyed property. The court reversed, holding that the notary's acknowledgment was not the proximate cause of the seller's loss because it was too tenuous a connection, even though the notarization enabled recordation of the fraudulent instrument.
The notarization is too tenuously related to the seller's damages to constitute legal proximate cause. While the notarization may have played a role and been a predicate for recordation, it is not the substantial cause of the seller's loss, and therefore the notary is not liable for damages caused by the buyer's fraud.
[1] A notary public's acknowledgment of a seller's signature on a deed, even if the deed was fraudulently constructed by the buyer, is not the proximate cause of the seller's…
[2] Proximate cause requires a substantial connection between the defendant's action and the plaintiff's damage, not merely a role or predicate for subsequent events.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“What is needed is something of that common-sense accommodation of judgment to kaleidoscopic situations which characterizes the law in its treatment of problems of causation. One could carry the search for causes backward, almost without end. [Citations omitted.] Instead, there has been a selective process which picks the substantial cause out of the web and lays the other ones aside.”
Establishes the foundational principle for proximate cause analysis—selecting the substantial cause among multiple contributing factors rather than pursuing an endless chain of causation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe seller signed a warranty deed that the notary later notarized in the seller's absence. The buyer, who was the seller's lawyer, fraudulently concei…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Causation cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We reverse the final judgment based on a jury verdict against this notary public, which found her liable in damages to the seller in a real estate transaction for a fraud perpetrated by the buyer. There is no question that the seller actually signed the instrument, later notarized in her absence by the defendant notary. Similarly, there is no question that the notary lacked any knowledge that the conveyance notarized was fraudulent as to the buyer. The buyer, who happened to be the seller’s lawyer, conceived and carried out the transaction.1 Plaintiff argues that the notarization proximately caused her damage because it allowed the instrument to be recorded in the public records, thus unwittingly but negligently effectuating the buyer’s scheme.
We conclude that the notarization is — jur-istically, if not factually — too tenuously related to seller’s damage or loss to constitute the legal proximate cause. As Justice Cardozo said in one of his most memorable passages:
• “What is needed is something of that common-sense accommodation of judgment to kaleidoscopic situations which characterizes the law in its treatment of problems of causation. One could carry the search for causes backward, almost without end. [Citations omitted.] Instead, there has been a selective process which picks the substantial cause out of the web and lays the other ones aside. * * * We shall be lost in a maze if we put that compass by.”
Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 117-118, 57 S.Ct. 96, 100, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936).
We do not think that a notary’s acknowledgment of the seller’s execution on a warranty deed, which had been fraudulently constructed by the buyer to effect a transaction different from the one actually agreed between seller and buyer, is a substantial cause of the seller’s loss. It may have played a role. It may have been the predicate for recordation. It may be traced in the web of circumstances from the one to the other. But it is not the proximate cause of her loss.
REVERSED.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur. . In a separate appeal, we have affirmed a judgment rescinding the conveyance because of the buyer’s fraud. See Alabaster v. Wetter, 626 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ameriseal OF N. E. Fla., Inc. v. Leiffer, 673 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ation on the grounds that any such count would be subject to summary judgment in favor of the defendants for the same reason, that is, that it was not the proximate cause of Ameriseal’s losses. In my view, this case is similar to Gardner v. Weiler, 630 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In that case, a seller was fraudulently induced (apparently by her own attorney) to sign a warranty deed. The seller actually signed the instrument but it was notarized in her absence by the notary. The notary lacked any knowled…
-
Blanco v. Yamilet Chao, 870 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Gardner v. Weiler, 630 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).…
Authorities Cited
- Gully v. First Nat'l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1936)