Ark. Code Ann. § 18-12-208 (2026)
Defects
-
All deeds, conveyances, deeds of trust, mortgages, marriage contracts, and other instruments in writing affecting or purporting to affect the title to any real estate or personal property situated in this state, which have been recorded and which are defective or ineffectual because:
- Of failure to comply with § 18-12-403;
- The officer who certified the acknowledgment or acknowledgments to such instruments omitted any words required by law to be in the certificate or acknowledgments;
- The officer failed or omitted to attach his or her seal to the certificate;
- The officer attached to any such certificate a seal not bearing the words and devices required by law;
- The officer was a mayor of a city or an incorporated town in the State of Arkansas and as such was not authorized to certify to executions and acknowledgments to such instruments, or was the deputy of an official duly authorized by law to take acknowledgments but whose deputy was not so authorized;
- The notary public failed to state the date of the expiration of his or her commission on the certificate of acknowledgment, or incorrectly stated it thereon;
- The officer incorrectly dated the certificate of acknowledgment or failed to state the county wherein the acknowledgment was taken; or
- The acknowledgment was certified in any county of the State of Arkansas by any person holding an unexpired commission as notary public under the laws of the state who had, at the time of the certification, ceased to be a resident of the county within and for which he or she was commissioned, shall be as binding and effectual as though the certificate of acknowledgment or proof of execution was in due form, bore the proper seal, and was certified to by a duly authorized officer.
-
A deed, conveyance, deed of trust, mortgage, marriage contract, and other instrument in writing, affecting or purporting to affect the title to any real estate or personal property situated in this state, which is executed after August 13, 1993, shall not be deemed defective or ineffectual because:
- The officer failed or omitted to attach his or her seal to the certificate;
- The officer attached to any such certificate a seal not bearing the words and devices required by law;
- The notary public failed to state the date of the expiration of his or her commission on the certificate of acknowledgment, or incorrectly stated it thereon;
- The officer incorrectly dated the certificate of acknowledgment or failed to state the county wherein the acknowledgment was taken; or
- The acknowledgment was certified in any county of the State of Arkansas by any person holding an unexpired commission as notary public under the laws of the state who had, at the time of the certification, ceased to be a resident of the county within and for which he or she was commissioned.
-
A deed, conveyance, deed of trust, mortgage, marriage contract, and any other instrument in writing, affecting or purporting to affect the title to any real estate or personal property situated in this state, whether executed before, on, or after April 8, 2013, shall not be found insufficient to satisfy the requirements of § 18-12-202:
- Because the acknowledgment thereof does not strictly comply with the form contained in § 16-47-107 or omits the words “for the consideration, uses, and purposes therein mentioned or set forth” or uses similar words;
- Because the gender listed in the acknowledgment thereof does not match the gender of the person acknowledging the instrument;
- Because the acknowledgment thereof does not identify the title or position of the person acknowledging the instrument on behalf of a corporation, partnership, company, trust, association, or other entity; or
- Where a good faith attempt at material compliance with § 16-47-107(a), (b), or (c), as applicable, has been made and there is no factual dispute as to the authenticity of the signature of the person making acknowledgement thereof.
-
Notwithstanding an acknowledgment to a deed or other instrument which may contain one (1) or more of the defects set forth in this section, if a deed or other instrument is recorded, it shall:
- Provide constructive notice thereafter to all parties of the matters contained in the deed or other instrument; and
- Be treated as any other deed or instrument in writing under § 16-47-110, and may be read into evidence in any court in this state without further proof of execution.
- A valid jurat may act as a substitute for a certificate of acknowledgment for instruments recorded on or after April 8, 2013.
History. Acts 1955, No. 101, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 49-213; Acts 1993, No. 1081, §§ 1, 2; 2013, No. 999, § 4.
Publisher's Notes. For prior validating acts, see Acts 1873, No. 11, §§ 5, 6, p. 13; Acts 1873, No. 17, §§ 1, 2, p. 25; Acts 1873, No. 41, §§ 1, 2, p. 83; Acts 1883, No. 69, § 6, p. 106; Acts 1883, No. 80, § 1, p. 128; Acts 1885, No. 117, § 1, p. 191; Acts 1893, No. 43, § 1, p. 66; Acts 1893, No. 172, § 1, p. 303; Acts 1895, No. 33, § 1, p. 37; Acts 1897 (Ex. Sess.), No. 21, § 1, p. 58; Acts 1899, No. 56, § 1, p. 107; Acts 1899, No. 175, § 1, p. 313; Acts 1901, No. 41, § 1, p. 79; Acts 1903, No. 87, § 1, p. 150; Acts 1903, No. 87, § 2, p. 150; Acts 1907, No. 147, § 1, p. 354; Acts 1911, No. 24, § 1; Acts 1913, No. 148, § 1; Acts 1915, No. 54, § 1; Acts 1917, No. 142, § 1, p. 765; Acts 1917, No. 142, § 2, p. 765; Acts 1919, No. 333, § 1; Acts 1919, No. 524, § 1; Acts 1923, No. 80, § 1; Acts 1923, No. 185, § 1; Acts 1935, No. 72, § 1; Acts 1937, No. 352, § 1; Acts 1941, No. 422, § 1; Acts 1949, No. 291, § 1.
Amendments. The 2013 amendment changed the section heading without markup and added (c), (d), and (e).
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Validation of Instruments Affecting Title to Property, 9 Ark. L. Rev. 414.
Curative Statutes Affecting Title to Real Property in Arkansas, 12 Ark. L. Rev. 386.
Case Notes
Acknowledgment by Interested Party.
An acknowledgment taken by an interested party does not authorize it to be recorded and it imparts no notice; however, such acknowledgments taken before Acts 1883, No. 69, were validated by § 6 of that act. Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420 (1884) (decision under prior law).
Acts 1893, No. 43, did not cure an acknowledgment which was taken by a party to the deed. Meunse v. Harper, 70 Ark. 309, 67 S.W. 869 (1902) (decision under prior law).
Failure to Sign.
Former curative act did not render valid a certificate of acknowledgment which the notary failed to sign although he affixed the imprint of his seal. Davis v. Hale, 114 Ark. 426, 170 S.W. 99 (1914) (decision under prior law).
Homesteads.
A mortgage of a homestead which was invalid because the grantors' wives did not join therein, was cured by former validating act. Sanders v. Flenniken, 172 Ark. 454, 289 S.W. 485 (1926) (decision under prior law).
Lack of Acknowledgment.
The curative provisions of this section cannot supply an acknowledgment when in fact there is none. Pardo v. Creamer, 228 Ark. 746, 310 S.W.2d 218 (1958).
Where a mortgage only contained a jurat by a notary public which simply stated “Given under my hand and official seal this 24th day of November, 2003. [Signed by] Maria F. Looper,” the mortgage was defective as it lacked an acknowledgement; this section did not cure the defect as it does not act to supply an acknowledgment when in fact there is none (decision under prior law). In re Beene, 349 B.R. 574 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2006).
Jurat attached to a mortgage was not an acknowledgment and, therefore, the mortgage lien was unperfected under Arkansas law; the provisions of this section could not be used to cure the defect in the mortgage because it does not act to supply an acknowledgment when in fact there was none (decision under prior law). In re Beene, 354 B.R. 856 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2006).
This curative statute did not operate to cure a mortgage deed that failed to comply with the acknowledgement requirements in §§ 16-47-106 and 16-47-101 because the transaction occurred after the passage of the statute. Thus, a mortgage lien was not perfected and could be avoided by a trustee under 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 544(a) and 550(a). Williams v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Stewart), 422 B.R. 185 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2009).
Family's claim that any defects in the acknowledgement of a prenuptial agreement between the decedent and his wife could be cured was rejected as there was no acknowledgement, defective or otherwise, and thus the curative provisions of this section did not apply. Lyle Farms P'ship v. Lyle, 2016 Ark. App. 577, 507 S.W.3d 519 (2016).
Omission of Essential Words.
An acknowledgment valid in the state where made but ineffectual at the time of recordation in Arkansas because of failure to use words required by § 18-12-206 was held to have been cured by former validating acts. Jackson v. Hudspeth, 208 Ark. 55, 184 S.W.2d 906 (1945) (decision under prior law).
Vested Rights.
Former acts, curing defective acknowledgments, did not interfere with vested rights. McGehee v. McKenzie, 43 Ark. 156 (1884) (decision under prior law).
Cited: Sample v. Sample, 237 Ark. 178, 372 S.W.2d 609 (1963).