CAROLYN MOORE v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, 124 A.3d 605

Background

Carolyn Moore purchased 54 Rhode Island Ave NW in 2003 with a mortgage and sought additional financing in 2005 to convert the basement into income-producing units.
Moore attended a closing on December 20, 2005, with Darwin Farmer (loan officer), Reginald Walker (alleged co-signer/buyer), and a notary; she signed many documents and acknowledged she did not read some of them fully.
After closing Moore received only $78,435.45 (less than expected); Walker later told her she had sold the property to him and that she could repurchase it for $800,000; Moore denied signing a sales contract and claimed forgery/fraud.
Documents Moore admitted signing included a HUD-1 listing her as “seller,” two handwritten disbursement authorizations referencing “proceeds of the sale,” and a Correction Agreement/limited power of attorney signed above a “seller” line.
The recorded deed conveyed the property to Walker for $800,000; Moore said the signature was not hers or was copied, but the deed’s notary block acknowledged Walker though his signature does not appear.
Judge Motley (Superior Court) rejected Moore’s plea of title and counterclaim, finding she failed to prove deed forgery or fraudulent inducement; Deutsche Bank obtained a non-redeemable judgment of possession. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Moore's Argument	Deutsche Bank/Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the recorded deed was forged/altered	The unsigned draft Moore kept was the version presented at closing and the recorded deed was later forged/altered	The unsigned draft could be an earlier unexecuted draft and the recorded deed’s notary irregularity was a clerical error	Court held evidence insufficient to prove forgery/alteration by clear and convincing evidence; no error in trial court finding
Whether Moore can invoke fraud in the factum (signed without knowing true nature)	She signed closing papers believing they were refinancing documents, not a sale	Moore was literate, had prior real-estate experience, had opportunity to read documents, and admitted signing without reading; negligence estops her claim	Court held fraud-in-the-factum not shown by clear and convincing evidence; estopped by her failure to read documents
Whether transaction was fraudulent inducement (relied on misrepresentations)	She relied on representations that the closing was a refinance; therefore the sale was procured by fraud	Evidence showed Moore understood key facts (disbursement authorizations, HUD-1, missing refinancing terms), and she did not rely on any proven misrepresentations	Court held fraudulent inducement not proven; trial court reasonably found she did not rely on misrepresentations
Whether the challenged defects void the chain of title affecting Deutsche Bank’s possession claim	Moore argued transaction void ab initio so later purchasers/holders (including Deutsche Bank) have no title	Deutsche Bank relied on record deed and foreclosure chain; defects alleged were not proved to invalidate deed	Court affirmed judgment for Deutsche Bank; defects insufficient to defeat title/possession claim

Key Cases Cited

Chen v. Bell-Smith, 768 F. Supp. 2d 121 (D.D.C. 2011) (describing fraud in the factum as signing without knowledge of instrument’s nature and rarity of successful claims)
Langley v. FDIC, 484 U.S. 86 (1987) (defining fraud in the factum concept)
Columbia Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Jackson, 131 A.2d 404 (D.C. 1957) (literacy and failure to read instruments can estop a fraud-in-the-factum defense)
Modern Mgmt. Co. v. Wilson, 997 A.2d 37 (D.C. 2010) (case where defendants were induced by explicit misrepresentations about documents’ nature)
Allen v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 663 A.2d 489 (D.C. 1995) (standard that appellant must show evidence compels a different factual finding)
In re Estate of Munawar, 981 A.3d 584 (D.C. 2009) (deed presumed valid on its face; challenger bears clear and convincing burden)