Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 61
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 61.060 (2026)

Official acts may be questioned collaterally, when

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No fact officially stated by an officer in respect of a matter about which he is by law required to make a statement in writing, either in the form of a certificate, return or otherwise, shall be called in question, except in a direct proceeding against the officer or his sureties, or upon the allegation of fraud in the party benefited thereby or mistake on the part of the officer. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 3760.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1942–2026 · leading case: Cit Grp./Consum. Fin., In v. Beverly Burden, Tr., 318 F. App'x 354 (6th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cit Grp./Consum. Fin., In v. Beverly Burden, Tr., 318 F. App'x 354 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 8× “o support their contention that Vance was incorrectly decided, and that the Bankruptcy Court and BAP therefore erred in holding that the Trustee in the instant case could avoid the Mortgage: (1) acknowledgment is the act of the mortgagor, not the notary, and any alleged defects…”
Rives v. Pettit, 513 S.W.2d 475 (Ky. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 6× “A sharp issue having arisen during the recount hearings with respect to the applicability and effect of KRS 61.060, which provides that no fact officially certified as required by law may be questioned except in a direct proceeding against the certifying officer or his sureties…”
Gibson v. Kentucky Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 328 S.W.3d 195 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010). “” KRS 61.060. While Gibson and Bowman both testified they never signed the title before a notary, they also did not assert the signed, notarized title was the result of fraud on the part of either Sanchez or Speth.”
Skaggs v. Vaughn, 550 S.W.2d 574 (Ky. Ct. App. 1977). “The deed of November 29,1968, contains a notary’s certificate that Skaggs and his wife acknowledged the deed to be their act and deed.”
Fletcher v. Wilson, 500 S.W.2d 601 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 2× “KRS 61.060 provides that no fact officially stated by an officer in respect of a matter about which he is by law required tó make a statement in writing, in the form of a certificate or otherwise, shall be called in question “except in a direct proceeding against the officer or…”
Dressler v. Barlow, 729 S.W.2d 464 (Ky. Ct. App. 1987). “KRS 61.060 provides that: No fact officially stated by an officer in respect of a matter about which he is by law required to make a statement in writing, either in the form of a certificate, return or otherwise, shall be called in question, except in a direct proceeding against…”
Ricky Nelson Howard, A/K/A Rick Howard v. Frank Howard T v. Cable, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 23× “We find merit in one and therefore will discuss only that—the applicability of KRS 61.060. Rick’s motion was concise and legally accurate.”
White v. White, 172 S.W.2d 72 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). “KRS 61.060 (KS, sec. 3760). Construing the allegations of the petition most strongly against appellants, as we must, it appears that they were over- fourteen years of age at the time the first suit was filed.”
Hall v. Sturgill, 204 S.W.2d 496 (Ky. Ct. App. 1947). “If the demurrer was directed to the petition as amended the allegation in the amendment that the sheriff’s return was filed after the contest proceeding was instituted would compel the court to overrule the demurrer, since the amendment attacked the validity of the sheriff’s…”
Jackson v. Bolt, 166 S.W.2d 831 (Ky. Ct. App. 1942). · cites it 2× “After the report of the sheriff was introduced, the court struck that part of paragraph 4 of the answer which alleged that the sheriff had not advertised the election as required by law, and refused to hear further testimony on that issue. This was proper since the appellants…”
Louisville & N. R. v. Paul's Adm'r, 235 S.W.2d 787 (Ky. Ct. App. 1950). “and but cause the parties to retake the evidence, for we would be impelled to authorize that it be done in support of the motion to strike the bill' of exceptions! The reception of evidence aliunde in support of such a motion where the official certification of a circuit clerk…”
Spicer v. Spicer, 236 S.W.2d 474 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “Appellee insists that as appellants did not call in question the certificate of the notary taking the acknowledgement in a direct proceeding, nor allege fraud upon the part of Dan, or mistake of the notary, they cannot under KRS 61.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
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.