Is a Witness to signing a contract Liable ?
Rocky
If someone signs a contract to purchase something, and
I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
to the conditions?
Thanks
Rocky
SPAMBLOCKED - Remove all CAPS !!!
Bob Stock
>If someone signs a contract to purchase something, and
>I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
>on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
>Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
>to the conditions?
No.
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
Frank
rockyro...@SUCKSiname.com (Rocky) wrote:
>
> If someone signs a contract to purchase something, and
> I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
> on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
> Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
You'd first look at the contract itself; what does the contract say the
"witness" is obligated to do?
What type of contract do you know that has anyone sign as a "witness" ??
The above is not legal advice, for legal advice see an attorney.
Frank
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Willondon Donovan
> [...] If someone signs a contract to purchase something, and
> I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
> on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
> Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think so.
As witness, you're testifying that you saw the person signing the form.
I'm not sure, but you may also be testifying that you know that the person
is who he says he is. That's all. You are not party to the contract.
At worst, you may be liable for damages if the signer used a fake name and
signature, and you knew about that when the contract was signed.
--
Willondon Donovan / will...@bigfoot.com
nos...@isp.com
>I am going to make up a simulated example.
>
>If someone signs a contract to purchase something, and
>I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
>on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
>Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
>to the conditions?
>
No.
David S Chesler
Willondon Donovan <will...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Rocky wrote:
>> [...] If someone signs a contract to purchase something, and
>> I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
>> on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
>> Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
>> to the conditions?
>
>
>As witness, you're testifying that you saw the person signing the form.
>I'm not sure, but you may also be testifying that you know that the person
>is who he says he is. That's all. You are not party to the contract.
>
>At worst, you may be liable for damages if the signer used a fake name and
>signature, and you knew about that when the contract was signed.
So it would seem, and it would seem that if it were not so then
the obligations should be spelled out.
However, Dear Abby or Ann Landers had a column a while back (c. 1980),
in which the reader told how he met an old friend while waiting in
line at the bank. When his friend's turn came up his friend did not
have sufficient identification, so the reader told the teller "I
have known this man for more than twenty years -- he is who he is
claiming to be". The teller asked him to endorse the check. The
reader did, the check bounced, the bank held the reader liable,
and Dear Abby told him he was SOL.
Apparently in the specific case of a bank, if Dear Abby was correct
(and my more legal-minded roommate said she was) a simple signature
stands for more than attesting to the fact of identification; it is
also attesting to the goodness of the check.
--
David Chesler (che...@post.harvard.edu, etc.)
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2955 (/riverbay/ for Co-op City)
"Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem"
Bill Siebert
Frank <sui...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:37a2a466...@news.supernews.com...
> What type of contract do you know that has anyone sign as a "witness" ??
For starters, a contract for the sale of land that must be recorded to be
valid. That requires two witnesses and a notary public in MI.
--
William A. Siebert
Attorney-at-Law
P.O. Box 116
Gladwin MI 48624-0116
No attorney-client relationship is created by this message except through a
written retainer agreement available on request.
Frank
"Bill Siebert" <wsie...@voyager.net> wrote:
>
> Frank <sui...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:37a2a466...@news.supernews.com...
>
> > What type of contract do you know that has anyone sign as a "witness" ??
>
> For starters, a contract for the sale of land that must be recorded to be
> valid. That requires two witnesses and a notary public in MI.
Interesting -- which Michigan statute requires that a contract to sell land
must not only be written, but have two witnesses, and be notarized, and be
recorded, to be "valid" ?
J. Steven Warner
Bill Siebert <wsie...@voyager.net> wrote in message
news:37b37917....@news.supernews.com...
>
> Frank <sui...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:37a2a466...@news.supernews.com...
>
> > What type of contract do you know that has anyone sign as a "witness" ??
>
> For starters, a contract for the sale of land that must be recorded to be
> valid. That requires two witnesses and a notary public in MI.
>
Here is an example of why it is important for those posting questions for
this group to include the relevant states out of which their legal questions
arose. In Florida, real estate contracts do not have to be recorded, do not
require any witnesses, and do not require a notary. Ironically, it is a
standard provision in most real estate contracts in Florida that the
contracts non recordable, and any attempt recordation (usually by the buyer)
an event of default under the contract.
--
J. Steven Warner, Attorney at Law
5701 North Pine Island Road
Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33321
All comments are not to be considered legal advice, and may not be relied
upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created in the absence of
a written engagement agreement executed by both the attorney and the client.
J. Steven Warner
Rocky <rockyro...@SUCKSiname.com> wrote in message
news:37b66bc5....@news.supernews.com...
> I am going to make up a simulated example.
>
> I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
> on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
> Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
> to the conditions?
If you actually signed as a witness, you should have no liability absent
your participation in a fraud if the signature of the purported a=party for
whom you witnessed was a forgery and you knew it.
The only other way you could have a problem would be if you signed as a
guarantor, or as a party to the contract. In this case, assuming you
thought you were signing as a witness but was tricked into signing as a
guarantor or a party, you would have a fraud defense. While the general
rule is that one responsible for contractual provisions even if the person
did not read them, the same can not necessarily be said if the person
signing the contract were not aware that they were signing as a party or
guarantor.
--
J. Steven Warner, Attorney at Law
5701 North Pine Island Road
Suite 320
fort Lauderdale, FL 33321
Frank
"J. Steven Warner" <jsw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Bill Siebert <wsie...@voyager.net> wrote in message
> news:37b37917....@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > Frank <sui...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:37a2a466...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > > What type of contract do you know that has anyone sign as a "witness" ??
> >
> > For starters, a contract for the sale of land that must be recorded to be
> > valid. That requires two witnesses and a notary public in MI.
> >
>
> require any witnesses, and do not require a notary. ***
I suspect Bill may have inadvertently used incorrect terms in describing MI
law. In most cases, a _contract_ for the sale of land consists of an offer,
with separate counter-offer, counter-to-counter offer, and multiple addendums
as negotiations and escrow develop. For ALL of these papers (which indeed
comprise the "contract") to have to have two witnesses, be notarized, and be
RECORDED would be incredibly unwieldy -- especially since the contract for
sale becomes irrelevant once the parties either release their rights, or
complete escrow and record the deed. A contract for real estate doesn't
transfer title, but creates a cause of action in event of contract breach.
The general rule, statute of frauds, is merely that a contract for sale of
land must be in writing.
The above is not legal advice, for legal advice see an attorney.
Frank
Bill Siebert
> > news:37a2a466...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > > What type of contract do you know that has anyone sign as a "witness"
??
> >
> > For starters, a contract for the sale of land that must be recorded to
be
> > valid. That requires two witnesses and a notary public in MI.
>
land
> must not only be written, but have two witnesses, and be notarized, and be
> recorded, to be "valid" ?
>
recordability, but an unrecorded contract is not binding on a later bona
fide purchaser -- only to the two signatories.
It should be noted here that there is a difference between a "land
contract," which is a form of seller financing of the property sale, and a
"purchase agreement," which is a contract to enter into a land sale and need
only be in writing.
Frank
"Bill Siebert" <wsie...@voyager.net> wrote:
>
> > > Frank <sui...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:37a2a466...@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > > What type of contract do you know that has anyone sign as a "witness"
> ??
> > >
> > > For starters, a contract for the sale of land that must be recorded to
> be
> > > valid. That requires two witnesses and a notary public in MI.
> >
> > Interesting -- which Michigan statute requires that a contract to sell
> land
> > must not only be written, but have two witnesses, and be notarized, and be
> > recorded, to be "valid" ?
> >
> MCL 565.351, MSA 26.671. The statute has been construed to pertain only to
> recordability, but an unrecorded contract is not binding on a later bona
> fide purchaser -- only to the two signatories.
So the land sale contract is "valid" between the parties even though it's
missing the witnesses and notary? It seems the issue of witnesses, which was
the gravamen of the original note, deals only with the ability to record the
document and not its enforceability/ validity.
As with most real estate dealings, recording affects notice to third parties.
Steve and I both interpreted your "contract for the sale of land" as meaning
"purchase agreement," which is indeed a contract to enter into a sale of real
property.
> It should be noted here that there is a difference between a "land
> contract," which is a form of seller financing of the property sale, and a
> "purchase agreement," which is a contract to enter into a land sale and need
> only be in writing.
Which brings us back to the first question -- aside from the requirements of
recording, which contracts require a "witness" in addition to the parties?
Stuart O. Bronstein
>Willondon Donovan <will...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Rocky wrote:
>>> [...] If someone signs a contract to purchase something, and
>>> I sign that contract as a witness, if that person defaults
>>> on payment, or other conditions listed in the contract,
>>> Am I (as witness) liable to pay the money due, or obligated
>>> to the conditions?
>>
>>As witness, you're testifying that you saw the person signing the form.
>>I'm not sure, but you may also be testifying that you know that the
>>person is who he says he is. That's all. You are not party to the
>>contract.
>>
> However, Dear Abby or Ann Landers had a column a while back (c. 1980),
>in which the reader told how he met an old friend while waiting in
>line at the bank. When his friend's turn came up his friend did not
>have sufficient identification, so the reader told the teller "I
>have known this man for more than twenty years -- he is who he is
>claiming to be". The teller asked him to endorse the check. The
>reader did, the check bounced, the bank held the reader liable,
>and Dear Abby told him he was SOL.
This is a very different situation. Under the UCC, anyone who endorses a
check is acts as a guarantor for anyone who endorsed the check before him.
Far from being merely a witness, he becomes a party to the transaction,
and liable for its breach.
Signing as a guarantor is very different from signing as a witness.
--
Stu (delete * from email address)
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
-Anatole France