{"id":507,"date":"2015-10-12T21:28:00","date_gmt":"2015-10-12T21:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=507"},"modified":"2023-12-15T22:00:53","modified_gmt":"2023-12-15T22:00:53","slug":"no-statute-of-limitations-bars-a-claim-to-set-aside-a-forged-deed-and-subsequent-mortgage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2015\/10\/12\/no-statute-of-limitations-bars-a-claim-to-set-aside-a-forged-deed-and-subsequent-mortgage\/","title":{"rendered":"No statute of limitations bars a claim to set aside a forged deed and subsequent mortgage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The New York Court of Appeals had reaffirmed the traditional rule that forged deeds do not convey title. It has clarified that no statute of limitations bars a challenge to a forged deed even if the purported owner has subsequently transferred interests in the land to a subsequent mortgagee who had no notice of the forgery.\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/new-york\/court-of-appeals\/2015\/46.html\">Faison v. Lewis<\/a>, 32 N.E.3d 400 (N.Y. 2015). The Court ruled that the third party purchaser is not a &#8220;bona fide&#8221; purchaser protected by the recording act because a forged deed can never be the basis of a valid transfer even if the third party did not know and could not have known about the forgery. To do otherwise would allow the forger to &#8220;steal&#8221; property and get away with it.<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/adverse-possession\/\" rel=\"tag\">Adverse Possession<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/consumer-protection\/\" rel=\"tag\">Consumer Protection<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/mortgages\/\" rel=\"tag\">Mortgages<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/real-estate-transactions\/\" rel=\"tag\">Real Estate Transactions<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/statute-of-frauds\/\" rel=\"tag\">Statute of Frauds<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/title-issues\/\" rel=\"tag\">Title Issues<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The New York Court of Appeals had reaffirmed the traditional rule that forged deeds do not convey title. It has clarified that no statute of limitations bars a challenge to a forged deed even if the purported owner has subsequently transferred interests in the land to a subsequent mortgagee who had no notice of the forgery.\u00a0Faison v. Lewis, 32 N.E.3d 400 (N.Y. 2015). The Court ruled that the third party purchaser is not a &#8220;bona fide&#8221; purchaser protected by the recording act because a forged deed can never be the basis of a valid transfer even if the third party did not know and could not have known about the forgery. To do otherwise would allow the forger to &#8220;steal&#8221; property and get away with it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[26,9,34,10,57,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-507","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-adverse-possession","category-consumer-protection","category-mortgages","category-real-estate-transactions","category-statute-of-frauds","category-title-issues"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/507","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/507\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}