Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 32-21-2-3 (2026)

Notarial acts; recording requirements; statement of mailing address; translations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 3. (a) Any instrument to be recorded must have one (1) of the following notarial acts:

(1) An acknowledgment (as defined in IC 33-42-0.5-2).

(2) A proof.

(b) A notarial act described in subsection (a)(1) must be performed:

(1) by a notarial officer (as defined in IC 33-42-0.5-19);

(2) by a remote notary public (as defined in IC 33-42-0.5-27); or

(3) in compliance with:

(A) IC 33-42-9-8;

(B) IC 33-42-9-9;

(D) IC 33-42-9-11.

(1) by a notarial officer (as defined in IC 33-42-0.5-19); or

(2) in compliance with:

(A) IC 33-42-9-8;

(B) IC 33-42-9-9;

(D) IC 33-42-9-11.

(d) In addition to the requirements specified under subsections (a) and (b), an instrument may not be recorded unless it meets the requirements of:

(1) this article;

(2) the notarial requirements for an acknowledgment or for a proof; and

(3) IC 36-2-11.

(e) A conveyance must include a statement containing substantially the following information:

"The mailing address to which statements should be mailed under IC 6-1.1-22-8.1 is [insert proper mailing address]. The mailing address of the grantee is [insert proper mailing address].".

The mailing address for the grantee must be a street address or a rural route address. A conveyance complies with this subsection if it contains the address or addresses required by this subsection at the end of the conveyance and immediately preceding or following the statements required by IC 36-2-11-15.

(f) If the instrument is executed in a foreign country, where the instrument, its acknowledgment, or its proof is in a language other than English, the instrument must include a translation from the other language into English.

[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 32-1-2-18.]

As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.6. Amended by P.L.135-2007, SEC.1; P.L.194-2007, SEC.7; P.L.143-2009, SEC.42; P.L.187-2018, SEC.4; P.L.14-2019, SEC.4; P.L.80-2020, SEC.1; P.L.2-2021, SEC.3.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2007–2020 · leading case: Fifth Third Bank, Indiana v. Edgar Cnty. Bank & Trust, Appeal of Garzolini Tire & Fuel, Inc., Debtor in Possession, 482 F.3d 904 (3rd Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fifth Third Bank, Indiana v. Edgar Cnty. Bank & Trust, Appeal of Garzolini Tire & Fuel, Inc., Debtor in Possession, 482 F.3d 904 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “The notary’s attestation does not reveal in which capacity they signed, so the document is ineffective under Ind.Code § 32-21-2-3. Although Ind.Code § 32-21-2-3 and its predecessors deal with the recording of mortgages rather than with the rights of the parties to the…”

Yoder v. Colonial Nat'l Mortg., 920 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “We note that Ind.Code Ann. § 32-21-2-3 (West, PREMISE through 2009 ist Regular Sess.”

Miller v. Lasalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n (In Re Gysin), 409 B.R. 485 (N.D. Ind. 2009). · cites it 2× “In this case, it is undisputed that LaSalle filed its mortgage with the Recorder, on May 1, 2001.”

Nat'l City Mortg. Co. v. Yoon (Hershman), 417 B.R. 97 (N.D. Ind. 2009). · cites it 4× “” Indiana Code § 32-21-2-3. Prior to 2007, there were several cases which held that if the mortgage is not properly acknowledged, then there isn’t constructive notice to a bonafide purchaser, and this renders the mortgage voidable.”

In Re Hershman, 417 B.R. 97 (N.D. Ind. 2009). · cites it 4× “" Indiana Code § 32-21-2-3. Prior to 2007, there were several cases which held that if the mortgage is not properly acknowledged, then there isn't constructive notice to a bonafide purchaser, and this renders the mortgage voidable.”

Debra Miller v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Associa, 595 F.3d 782 (7th Cir. 2010). “2 See Ind.Code § 32-21-2-3 (requiring that a notary public authenticate signature for grantors of mortgage); § 32-21-2-7 (now modified by § 32-21-4-1, at issue in the present case); Sandy Ridge Oil Co.”

Pierce v. Time Inv. Co., Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2020). · cites it 2× “2010) and Ind. Code § 32-21-2-3 . As a purported "mortgage", the Credit Agreement was never acknowledged and was not recorded in the mortgage records of the Office of the Recorder of Henry County; nor was it filed in the "real property records".”

Garzolini Tire & Fue v. Edgar Cnty. Bank (7th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “Garzolini Tire maintains that these signatures are inadequate, because the Garzolinis may have been sign- ing exclusively in their personal capacities.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.