Suit Against a Notary for Knowingly Notarizing Forged Signature Time-Barred, Plus Criminal Matter - California Case Law
California Case Law - The FindLaw California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal Opinion Summaries Blog

Suit Against a Notary for Knowingly Notarizing Forged Signature Time-Barred, Plus Criminal Matter

Purdum v. Holmes, B216493, involved a plaintiff's action against a licensed notary for knowingly notarizing a third-party's signature on a deed as if it were plaintiff's, purporting to transfer plaintiff's interest to the third-party.  In affriming the trial court's judgment in favor of the notary, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it set aside defendant's default.  Further, the trial court correctly concluded that each of plaintiff's causes of action against defendant was barred by the six-year maximum limitation period that is prescribed for an action against a notary in his official capacity by section 338(f)(3), regardless of delayed discovery.

 

People v. Miller, E049206, concerned a challenge to the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for a new trial, following a jury conviction of defendant of sexual penetration of a minor.  In reversing, the court held that Melendez-Diaz did not require exclusion of the female criminalist's report as, under Geier, if the female criminalist's report is a contemporaneous recordation of observable events, which the make criminalist testified it was, it is not testimonial and its admission does not violate defendant's right to confrontation.  The court also held that the trial court erroneously concluded that the report was not admissible under the hearsay exception it used to admit it.  Lastly, even if the report should have been excluded, its erroneous admission did not so prejudice defendant that he is entitled to a new trial.

Related Resources: