Happy family

Find a legal form in minutes

Browse US Legal Forms’ largest database of 85k state and industry-specific legal forms.

Introduction of Acknowledged Instrument in Evidence

Instruments which statutorily require an acknowledgement and which are in fact properly acknowledged are generally admissible into evidence without further proof of its execution.  However, an instrument which does not come within the contemplation an acknowlegement statute is not proved by the fact that it bears a certificate of acknowledgment.  Unacknowledged intruments are not admissible in and of themselves.

A document that contains a certificate of acknowledgment taken before a notary public is considered to be self proving.[i]

In Dondero v. Turrillas, 59 Nev. 374 (Nev. 1939), the court observed that the conveyance by a married woman of her separate property does not require an acknowledgment to make it effective.

In re Estate of Shedrick, 122 Ill. App. 3d 861 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1984), a certificate of acknowledgment permits the offering of a deed into evidence without further showing as to its genuineness.  There is a presumption that a duly acknowledged and recorded deed is delivered and accepted.  However, this presumption is rebuttable and not conclusive.[ii]

In order to assess sanctions in a summary judgment hearing, the court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to which the rules of evidence necessarily apply.  The affidavits must be admitted in compliance with the rules of evidence at the evidentiary hearing.[iii]

In a suit on promissory note, no court will approve the admission of the note in evidence without admission or proof of its genuineness as the note of the purporting maker.  Evidence must be there, unless it is waived.  The same rule applies with respect to letters and other documentary evidence.[iv]

In Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Kouba, 335 N.W.2d 780, 785 (N.D. 1983), the court observed that the acknowledged documents and commercial paper do not require extrinsic evidence of authenticity before admission.

[i] Jouson v. Presidio Corp., 590 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1979)

[ii] Smith v. State, 53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 205 (Ill. Ct. Cl. 2000)

[iii] Kugle v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 88 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2002)

[iv] Robertson v. Burstein, 105 N.J.L. 375 (E. & A. 1929)


Inside Introduction of Acknowledged Instrument in Evidence