Jones v. Owen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 08-1436
SONDRA JONES
Opinion Delivered
APPELLANT,
VS.
NORMA OWEN, LARRIE OWEN,
PATSY WILLHITE, BETTY BLACK,
SUSAN FOX, JOHNNIE KENT, AND
TOMMY SMITH
APPELLEES,
October 22, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
SEVENTH DIVISION
NO. PR 2006-250
HON. JIM SPEARS, JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED ON
DIRECT APPEAL; AFFIRMED ON
CROSS-APPEAL.
ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER, Associate Justice
Appellant Sondra Jones, the personal representative and sole beneficiary of the estate
of decedent Billy Joe Smith, appeals from a judgment entered by the Sebastian County Circuit
Court on September 16, 2008, in favor of Appellees Norma Owen, Larrie Owen, Patsy
Willhite, Betty Black, Susan Fox, Johnnie Kent and Tommy Smith. Appellant raises two
points of error. First, she alleges that the circuit court erred in ruling that the decedent’s
power of attorney in favor of Appellee Larrie Owen, the decedent’s brother-in-law, was valid.
Second, she maintains that the circuit court erred in holding that the power of attorney
granted Appellee Owen authority to gift the decedent’s real property to Appellees, the
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
decedent’s siblings. Appellees, in turn, argue on cross-appeal that the circuit court erred in
creating a constructive trust in the estate’s favor over the decedent’s remaining property.
Because this appeal involves a significant issue needing clarification or development of the
law, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 1-2(b)(5). For the reasons stated
herein, we hold that the power of attorney was invalid, and therefore , that Appellee Owen
had no authority to transfer the decedent’s real property. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit
court’s ruling to the contrary. As to Appellees’ point on cross appeal, we affirm the circuit
court.
In 1966, decedent executed a valid will bequeathing his entire estate on his death to
his wife, Appellant’s mother, and on her death, to Appellant. This will was never revoked.
In April 2005, decedent’s divorce from his wife was finalized. Decedent died on February
25, 2006; his then ex-wife died one month later.
Prior to his death, decedent signed a power of attorney in favor of Appellee Owen.
Though all parties agree that the decedent signed this instrument willingly, Appellant argues
on appeal, as she did below, that the power of attorney was not properly acknowledged. The
Arkansas Supreme Court reviews matters in equity de novo on the record, with respect to
both fact questions and legal questions. Hudson v. Kyle, 365 Ark. 341, 229 S.W.3d 890
(2006). As the circumstances surrounding the execution of the power of attorney are critical
to determining its validity, we relate them in detail here.
Two versions of the power of attorney, identical in their language, were admitted into
-2-
08-1436
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
evidence. Both were prepared by the decedent’s attorney, Wayland Parker, and notarized by
Parker’s secretary, Rene Cates. One version had been signed by the decedent in the presence
of Appellee Owen and Attorney Parker. Appellee Owen testified that he dated the document
November 20, 2004, both above the decedent’s signature and on the certificate of
acknowledgment. There is no dispute that Cates was not present at the time the decedent
signed the power of attorney. Likewise, the authenticity of Cates’s signature on the certificate
is not disputed. The second version of the power of attorney was never signed by the
decedent, but Cates had signed the certificate of acknowledgment and Appellee Owen had
dated it April 4, 2004, which was a Sunday.
When asked about the procedure she follows in notarizing documents, Cates testified
that she was usually present when Parker’s clients signed documents and that she usually dated
the certificate of acknowledgment herself. However, both she and Parker testified that if
Parker planned to meet with a client early in the morning or on a weekend, he would ask
Cates to sign the certificate of acknowledgment beforehand. No one was able to remember
the procedure followed when the decedent signed the November 20 power of attorney.
Indeed, though it is her signature on the certificate of acknowledgment, Cates was not able
to recall signing that particular certificate.
The circuit court found that, despite the questionable circumstances surrounding the
acknowledgment of the November 20 power of attorney, the instrument was nonetheless
valid pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 21-14-111. This statute provides as
-3-
08-1436
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
follows:
(a) It is unlawful for any notary public to witness any signature on any
instrument unless the notary public either:
(1) Witnesses the signing of the instrument and personally knows the
signer or is presented proof of the identity of the signer; or
(2) Recognizes the signature of the signer by virtue of familiarity with
the signature.
(b) Any notary public violating this section shall be guilty of a Class A
misdemeanor.
(c) For purposes of this section, “personally knows” means having an
acquaintance, derived from association with the individual, which establishes
the individual's identity with at least a reasonable certainty.
Ark. Code Ann. § 21-14-111 (Repl. 2004). Cates was able to recognize the decedent’s
signature because he had been Parker’s client for a long time. Based on Cates’s familiarity
with the decedent’s signature, the circuit court held that she had fulfilled her duty under Ark.
Code Ann. § 21-14-111(a)(2), and therefore the acknowledgment was valid.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals has certified this case to us on the issue of whether
Ark. Code Ann. § 21-14-111 governs the validity of the acknowledgment. Section 21-14111 is a criminal statute that outlines when a notary public may be held liable for an improper
notarization. Although a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 21-14-111 would be sufficient to
invalidate an acknowledgment, it does not constitute the only grounds for finding an
acknowledgment deficient. In the instant case, even if Cates would not be subject to criminal
liability for her notarization of the decedent’s signature on the instrument, section 21-14-111
is not dispositive. At issue here is the validity of the power of attorney, not Cates’s criminal
liability.
-4-
08-1436
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
The proper method for the acknowledgment of a signed instrument has been
statutorily outlined and discussed in prior case law. A power of attorney may be properly
executed in one of three ways, including “[i]n the presence of a notary public who shall
acknowledge the instrument.” Ark. Code Ann. § 28-68-304(a)(3)(A) (Repl. 2004). The
notary public who takes an acknowledgment must “know or have satisfactory evidence that
the person making the acknowledgment is the person described in and who executed the
instrument.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-47-205 (Repl. 1999). For any deed or instrument
affecting real property, an acknowledgment is taken “by the grantor appearing in person
before a court or officer having the authority by law to take the acknowledgment and stating
that he had executed the deed or instrument for the consideration and purposes therein
mentioned and set forth.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-47-106(a) (Repl. 1999). We have held that
the grantor may, at some time after signing an instrument, appear before a notary public in
person to acknowledge his or her signature on the document. O’Kane v. First Nat’l Bank of
Paris, 189 Ark. 396, 72 S.W.2d 537 (1934). The grantor may even acknowledge his or her
signature via a telephone conversation with the notary public. Abernathy v. Harris, 183 Ark.
22, 34 S.W.2d 765 (1931). However, if the grantor never appears to acknowledge his or her
signature on the instrument, but the notary public falsely certifies that the grantor did appear,
the acknowledgment is void. Lytton v. Johnson, 236 Ark. 277, 365 S.W.2d 461 (1963); Nevada
County Bank v. Gee, 130 Ark. 312, 197 S.W. 680 (1917).
-5-
08-1436
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
The purpose of a notary public taking an acknowledgment of an instrument is to
certify the identity of the person who executed the instrument. In other words, the notary
public has been entrusted by the State with the responsibility of certifying the bona fides of
the instrument’s execution—that the person making the acknowledgment “is the person
described in and who executed the instrument.” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-47-205 (emphasis
added). By signing the certificate of acknowledgment, the notary public attests that he or she
has performed this duty. A notary public has properly taken an acknowledgment when he or
she witnesses the signing of an instrument or when the signer subsequently appears before the
notary and acknowledges his or her signature on the instrument. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-68304(a)(3)(A); O’Kane v. First Nat’l Bank of Paris, supra.
The very purpose of the
acknowledgment is defeated if the notary public signs the acknowledgment certificate before
there is a signature on the instrument.
Based upon our de novo review of the record before us, it is clear that Cates signed
the certificate of acknowledgment for the November 20 power of attorney before the
decedent signed the instrument. Both she and Parker testified that this was not an uncommon
practice when, as in this case, the client was expected to sign the instrument at a time when
Cates would not be present in the office. Also, it is undisputed that Cates did not date the
certificate of acknowledgment. Appellee Owen confirmed that he dated the document above
the decedent’s signature and on the certificate of acknowledgment. Thus, the date on the
certificate was left blank so that the same date could be inserted on the power of attorney and
-6-
08-1436
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
the certificate of acknowledgment. Moreover, the existence of an unexecuted version of the
power of attorney dated April 4, 2004, with Cates’s signature on the certificate of
acknowledgment, confirms that it was not unusual for Cates to sign the certificate before the
instrument itself had been executed.
Finally, the circuit court questioned the credibility of Cates’s testimony that she had
verbally verified the decedent’s signature on the power of attorney. Thus, even if Cates had
signed the acknowledgment after the decedent executed the power of attorney, there was no
credible proof that the decedent appeared before her as required to confirm his signature.
Accordingly, we hold that Cates’s improper notarization of the acknowledgment is fatal to
the validity of the November 20 power of attorney.
Because any acts that Appellee Owen performed pursuant to the power of attorney
would also be invalid, we affirm the circuit court’s ruling as to the decedent’s remaining
personal property. Since Appellee Owen was not authorized by the power of attorney to sell
the decedent’s personal property, the circuit court did not err in placing the proceeds in a
constructive trust for the estate. See, e.g., Cox v. Miller, 363 Ark. 54, 210 S.W.3d 842
(2005)(the duty to convey property pursuant to a constructive trust may arise where the
property was acquired through the wrongful disposition of the property). We remand to the
circuit court for entry of an order granting appropriate relief consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded on direct appeal; affirmed on cross-appeal.
-7-
08-1436
Cite as 2009 Ark. 505
-8-
08-1436
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.