Grote v. Arvest Bank, 5:17-cv-05069

Plaintiff Will Grote alleges unknown parties forged his signature on a Loan and Security Agreement obligating him to pay GECC $156,854.88 for two tanker trailers.
Eleven days later a separate Power of Attorney (POA) for titling/registration — allegedly also forged — was notarized by defendant notary Sabrina C. Cooper.
Grote sued Cooper and her employer Arvest Bank for negligence, claiming Cooper’s notarization of the forged POA proximately caused him to incur trailer-related damages (purchase cost, transport, licensing, registration).
Grote learned of the loan only when GECC contacted him; he picked up the trailers and began payments to protect his credit.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the negligence claim is time-barred and that the complaint fails to plead proximate causation linking the notarization to Grote’s trailer liability.
The Court held the suit was timely but concluded Grote failed to plead facts plausibly showing Cooper’s notarization proximately caused his obligation under the Loan Agreement, and dismissed without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations	Claim timely; suit filed exactly three years after notarization (April 18, 2014 → April 18, 2017)	Three-year limitation applies and would bar any untimely claim	Timely — three-year negligence period begins when negligence occurs; Grote filed within three years
Proximate causation	GECC relied on the notarized POA to pursue collection; Cooper’s notarization set collections in motion	Loan Agreement (not notarized) created the obligation; POA merely duplicated existing authority and did not create the debt; complaint lacks facts tying notarization to creation of liability	Dismissed — complaint fails to plausibly allege that Cooper’s notarization was the proximate cause of Grote’s liability for the trailers
Duty / breach by notary	Cooper owed a duty to properly notarize; she breached by notarizing a forged signature	Defendants did not dispute duty; they disputed causation and sufficiency of factual allegations	Duty and alleged breach sufficiently pleaded, but causation insufficient
Appropriate remedy / pleading posture	Requests relief for damages tied to trailers and related costs	Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim	Court granted Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a negligence claim due to lack of proximate causation

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (procedural standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and dismissal principles)
Ashley Cty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552 F.3d 659 (Eighth Circuit on pleading and inference rules)
Orsini v. Larry Moyer Trucking, Inc., 310 Ark. 179 (Arkansas rule on when negligence statute of limitations begins)
Robinson Nursing and Rehab. Ctr. LLC v. Phillips, 2017 Ark. 162 (elements of negligence under Arkansas law)
City of Caddo Valley v. George, 340 Ark. 203 (definition of proximate cause)
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sharp, 330 Ark. 174 (proximate cause principles)
Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Adams, 199 Ark. 254 (foreseeability and proximate cause)