Kimberly Stone Griffith v. Desiderio Juarez
2022 Ark. App. 206
Ark. Ct. App.2022Background
- Kimberly Stone Griffith alleges her signature was forged on a January 10, 1989 warranty deed (recorded April 26, 1989) conveying an interest in property her father had inherited; she was 14 when the signature was forged.
- Darrell Stone (Kimberly’s father) died intestate in 1981; his estate was never probated.
- The Allens (Veronica and Richard) executed the 1989 deed, later conveyed the property to the Broshes (1996), who conveyed it to Desiderio Juarez (2002); Juarez mortgaged the property in 2008.
- Kimberly filed a 2020 petition to determine heirship and quiet title, claiming the 1989 deed was forged and void as to her interest.
- The circuit court dismissed with prejudice Kimberly’s quiet-title claim as to the Allens and Juarez, holding the seven-year statute of limitations (Ark. Code Ann. § 18-61-101) accrued when Kimberly turned 18 in 1992 because the recorded deed put her on constructive notice. Kimberly appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: although forged deeds cannot pass title, recording the deed charged Kimberly with constructive notice and the claim was time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a forged deed can divest a minor heir of land inherited by intestacy | Kimberly: her signature was forged; forged deed cannot divest her vested interest | Allens/Juarez: recording of the deed placed constructive notice; statute of limitations bars the claim | Forged deeds do not pass title, but the statute of limitations still runs; Kimberly’s claim was time-barred |
| Whether a recorded forged deed constitutes constructive notice (and thus starts the limitations period) | Kimberly: she was unaware and affirmatively misled by her mother/stepfather, so concealment tolled the limitations period | Allens/Juarez: recording statute charges constructive notice and precludes concealment; a reasonable inquiry would have revealed the deed | Recording statute creates constructive notice; a reasonable inquiry was required; limitations began by 1992 when she turned 18, so the 2020 suit is untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaramillo v. Adams, 100 Ark. App. 335 (Ark. App. 2007) (statute of limitations begins when a reasonable inquiry would have revealed a recorded forged deed)
- Hughes v. McCann, 13 Ark. App. 28 (Ark. App. 1984) (recorded instruments put parties on constructive notice for limitations purposes)
- Teall v. Schroder, 158 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1895) (recorded conveyances charge parties with knowledge for accrual of fraud claims)
- Bird v. Jones, 37 Ark. 195 (Ark. 1881) (forged deed cannot pass title)
- Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing v. Baker, 337 Ark. 94 (Ark. 1999) (statutes of limitation reflect legislative policy and courts defer to them)