Jackson v. County of Amador

Good Law
112 Cal. Rptr. 3d 506·186 Cal. App. 4th 514·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1055
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 7, 2010C060845California2,765 words

Opinion

Opinion

Scotland, J.

Jewel Jackson sued the County of Amador and its recorder (collectively, the County), alleging that the county recorder violated section 27203 of the Government Code by “willfully, negligently, untruly and/or in a manner other than that prescribed by [the recording statutes] caused to be recorded” a durable power of attorney and two quitclaim deeds which, she asserted, had been fraudulently procured by her brother. Even though the documents had certificates of acknowledgment by a notary public, Jackson contends the county recorder breached a duty to her by failing to determine that she did not sign the power of attorney or direct her brother to sign it on her behalf and, thus, the recorder should not have recorded the documents.

After sustaining the County’s demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court dismissed Jackson’s lawsuit. She appeals.

We conclude the County did not owe Jackson a duty to look beyond the notary’s certificate of acknowledgment and determine whether the power of attorney was legally sufficient to confer on Norton the power to engage in real property transactions on Jackson’s behalf. As we will explain, the statutory scheme explicitly states that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.