Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 89-3-1 (2026)
Acknowledgment or proof necessary to recording; recording of tangible copy of electronic document; certificate of electronic document
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) A document concerning real property or conveying personal property may not be recorded unless, in the case of a paper document, it contains an original signature or signatures, or in the case of an electronic document, contains an electronic signature or signatures that comply with the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (Article 3, Chapter 5, Title 89, Mississippi Code of 1972). For purposes of this section, the terms "document," "paper document" and "electronic document" have the meaning given in the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act. A document concerning real property or conveying personal property which conforms to this subsection may be recorded if it is acknowledged or proved according to law, or in the case of a document that is an affidavit, verified upon oath or affirmation.
- (2)
- (a) A tangible copy of an electronic document that is otherwise eligible for recording under the laws of this state may be recorded if the tangible copy of the electronic document has been certified to be a true and correct copy of the electronic document as required in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2).
- (b) The certificate must be transmitted with and be recorded as a part of the tangible copy of the electronic document being recorded and must:
- (i) Contain an original signature of a licensed attorney or custodian of the electronic document that is verified upon oath or affirmation;
- (ii) Identify the jurisdiction in which the certification is performed;
- (iii) Contain the title of the notarial officer;
- (iv) Indicate the date of expiration, if any, of the notarial officer's commission; and
- (v) Include an official seal of the notary public affixed to the certificate.
- (c) The following form of certificate is sufficient for purposes of this subsection if completed with the information required in paragraph (b) of this subsection:
"CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT
I, __________, [a licensed attorney or the custodian of the electronic document], hereby certify that the attached document, __________ (insert title), on __________(date), and containing __________ pages, is a true and correct copy of an electronic document printed by me or under my supervision. A false certification under this section shall be subject to any penalties provided by law for such.
(Signature of person making certification)
STATE OF ____________________
COUNTY OF ____________________
Signed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on __________(date) by __________ (name(s) of individual(s) making statement).
(Signature of Notarial Officer)
(Title of officer)
My commission expires:____________________
(Affix official seal, if applicable)"
- (d) All tangible copies of electronic documents eligible for recording under this subsection (2) are validly recorded when accepted for recording by the chancery clerk's office. Tangible copies of electronic documents recorded by a chancery clerk before the effective date of the Revised Mississippi Law on Notarial Acts shall be considered validly recorded with or without the certification provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2).
- (e) The person making the certification provided in this section must:
- (i) Confirm that the electronic document contains an electronic signature that is capable of independent verification and renders any subsequent changes or modifications to the electronic document evident;
- (ii) Personally print or supervise the printing of the electronic document onto paper; and
- (iii) Not make any changes or modifications to the electronic document other than the certification described in this subsection (2).
- (f) If a certificate is completed with the information required by paragraph (b) of this subsection (2) and is attached to or made part of a tangible copy of an electronic document, the certificate is prima facie evidence that the requirements of paragraph (e) of this subsection (2) have been satisfied.
- (g) This section does not apply to maps or plats that are subject to the requirements of Section 19-27-23, 19-27-25 or 19-27-27.
- (3) The chancery clerk's office may refuse to record a document that does not satisfy the requirements of this section. However, if a document does not satisfy subsection (1) or (2) of this section, but is otherwise admitted to record, then all persons shall be on constructive notice of the contents of the document.
- (4) If the relative priorities of conflicting claims to real property were established before July 1, 2011, then the law applicable to those claims at the time those claims were established shall determine their priority.
- (5) This section does not require the acknowledgement or verification upon oath or affirmation or prohibit the recording of any of the following filed for record under the Uniform Commercial Code or otherwise specially provided for by law:
- (a) A financing statement;
- (b) A security agreement filed as a financing statement; or
- (c) A continuation statement.
Codes, Hutchinson's 1848, ch. 42, art. 1 (7); 1857, ch. 36, art. 25; 1871, § 2308; 1880, § 1215; 1892, § 2460; 1906, § 2793; Hemingway's 1917, § 2294; 1930, § 2135; 1942, § 856; Laws, 1966, ch. 316, § 10-105; Laws, 2011, ch. 364, § 8; Laws, 2011, ch. 538, § 2, eff. 7/1/2011.
Amended by Laws, 2021, ch. 434, SB 2638,§ 1, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by Laws, 2020, ch. 382, HB 1156,§ 31, eff. 7/1/2021.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1983–2019 · leading case: Cotton v. McConnell, 435 So. 2d 683 (Miss. 1983).
Cotton v. McConnell, 435 So. 2d 683 (Miss. 1983). “The acknowledgment, thus, was defective. McConnell and Horner's attempts to cure this defect have likewise come to grief.”
White v. Delta Found., Inc., 481 So. 2d 329 (Miss. 1985). “Miss.Code Ann § 89-3-1 provides that an instrument which has not been duly acknowledged shall not be admitted to record, and if it is, it does not constitute notice.”
Est. of Dykes v. Est. of Williams, 864 So. 2d 926 (Miss. 2003). “Miss.Code Ann. §§ 89-3-1, 87-3-3 (1999). The Legislature has even provided a form for acknowledgments dealing with real property.”
Turney v. Marion Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 481 So. 2d 770 (Miss. 1985). “Finally, appellees cite Miss. Code Ann. § 89-3-1 (1972) which requires an acknowledgment of the execution of a lease before recordation in the public records.”
Harrell v. Lamar Co., LLC, 925 So. 2d 870 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “1992) (citing Miss.Code Ann. § 89-3-1 (1972)). The effect of the lack of acknowledgment is that any such instrument which is filed of record without an acknowledgment or proof shall not be notice to creditors or subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration.”
Metro. Nat'l Bank, James M. Oberlies & Robert E. Ryan v. United States, 901 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1990). “” A deed of trust is not eligible for rec-ordation unless it is properly acknowledged, and an instrument that does not contain a proper acknowledgment does not impart constructive notice to creditors or bona fide purchasers, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. § 89-3-1 (1972): [A]…”
Morton v. Resolution Trust Corp., 918 F. Supp. 985 (S.D. Miss. 1995). “This circumstance renders the document invalid, says RTC, arguing that such documents must meet the requirements of § 89-3-1, Miss. Code Ann. (1972). White v.”
Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. of Mississippi, Inc. v. Bennett, 611 So. 2d 973 (Miss. 1992). “Miss.Code Ann. § 89-3-1 (1972) provides the following with reference to ac-knowledgement of deeds: [FJirst be acknowledged or proved, and the acknowledgement or proof duly certified by an officer competent to take the same in the manner directed by this chapter; and any such…”
Crum v. Butler, 601 So. 2d 834 (Miss. 1992). “See, Miss. Code Ann. § 89-3-1 (1972). Under the facts in this case the 1883 deed was effective against Crum.”
Williams v. Wells Fargo Fin. Mississippi 2, Inc. (In Re Rick's Auto Outlet of Monticello, LLC), 327 B.R. 650 (8th Cir. BAP 2005). “Even with a liberal interpretation, this deed and acknowledgment does not provide notice that the individuals who signed it were acting on behalf of the LLC.”
Thames v. Jackson Prod. Credit Ass'n, 600 So. 2d 208 (Miss. 1992). “Miss.Code Ann. § 89-3-1 (1972) provides: Except in cases governed by the Uniform Commercial Code or otherwise specially provided for by law, a written instrument of or concerning the sale of lands, whether the same be made for passing an estate of freehold or inheritance, or for…”
Kenneth R. Borries v. Goshen Mortg., LLC, 219 So. 3d 593 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). “Metropolitan Bank relied on section 89-3-1 of the Mississippi Code (1972), which until its revision in 2011 included the same language as the 1857 statute previously quoted.”
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.