Forgery, False Pretenses and Fraudulent Inducement: Void or Voidable Deeds?

As I have explained in prior posts (“Void or Voidable” in Fraud, Visited Again; More on the Void/Voidable Dichotomy in Fraud and First Department Explains Distinction Between Void and Voidable Documents and Corresponding Fraud), there are different categories of “fraud” that have different consequences as applied to challenged deeds and other legal documents. Concisely stated, a document existing by virtue of a forged signature doesn’t exist at all (“void”); a document signed under false pretenses (i.e., being advised and thinking that it was something else), also is deemed not to exist; and a document known to be what it says it is but signed as a result of false representations, can still exist and be enforceable if not properly and timely challenged (“voidable”).

A new decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department (DiCenzo v Mone, 2025 NY Slip Op 02383 (Decided April 24, 2025)) thoroughly and precisely laid out these concepts in analytically applying them to the facts presented. It is an informative and well-crafted decision worthy of reading.

Read the full blog post here.