The Witness Who Wasn't in the Room
In 2021, notary Carl presided over an authentic act of sale of a tract in Tangipahoa Parish. The act recites that Carl, two witnesses, the buyer, and the seller were present and signed. One witness was Carl's office manager; the other was a client who had been waiting in the lobby. In 2024, the seller's heir sues the buyer in a petitory action, claiming the sale is invalid. The heir alleges the office manager was at lunch during the signing and that the lobby client signed later that afternoon. The heir wants to call Carl and the office manager to testify and to introduce text messages showing the manager was away from the office. The buyer's lawyer argues that the authentic act cannot be attacked this way. Carl is subpoenaed and is nervous; the buyer's lawyer asks Carl to sign an affidavit saying "all formalities were observed."
1. Can the heir attack the authentic act with this testimony in the petitory action? Explain the evidentiary principle.
Read the worked answer
No, not in that collateral posture. An authentic act is full proof of the agreement it contains against the parties and their heirs and successors. It is not to be contradicted by parol testimony in a collateral proceeding. The policy is to make notarial acts reliable and to prevent every property transaction from being relitigated through memory and hearsay.
The heir's proper path is a direct action for nullity of the authentic act, or an attack based on forgery, brought in the proper proceeding and with the proper parties. In that direct action, the heir would have to prove the ground of nullity. The text messages and the witnesses' testimony may be relevant there, but they do not convert the petitory action into a collateral attack on the act.
Carl's certificate is not a magic shield against every claim, but the heir cannot ignore the procedural requirement and simply ask the court to disbelieve the notary in a suit about title.
2. If the heir files the correct action, what must be proved, and what role would Carl's testimony play?
Read the worked answer
The heir must prove a recognized ground for nullity, such as forgery, fraud, or the absence of a formal requirement that makes the act invalid. The mere fact that a witness was not in the room at the moment of signing may support a claim that the act was not executed in the required form, but the heir must establish that defect by competent evidence and in the correct action.
Carl's testimony would be evidence, but he is not free to rewrite his certificate to protect a party. If Carl truthfully recalls that the office manager was absent, he must say so. If he does not recall, he must say that. A notary's certificate is strong proof, but it is not a license for the notary to commit perjury.
The heir should also consider whether the action has prescribed and whether all necessary parties are joined. Those issues may dispose of the case before the witness testimony is reached.
3. What should Carl do about the buyer's lawyer's request for an affidavit saying "all formalities were observed"?
Read the worked answer
Carl must not sign an affidavit that states something he does not know to be true. If he genuinely remembers that both witnesses were present, he may sign a truthful affidavit describing his recollection. If he does not remember, or if he remembers that the office manager was absent, he cannot sign the requested statement.
He should tell the buyer's lawyer that he will testify truthfully and that he will not sign a prepared statement he cannot verify. He may review the act and his records to refresh his memory, but he must not adopt the lawyer's conclusion as his own.
Signing a false affidavit would be a separate act of misconduct and could expose Carl to perjury and notarial discipline, quite apart from the sale dispute. His duty is to the integrity of the record, not to the side that subpoenaed him.