An employee within the land acquisition operation had prepared the easement document using information taken from an earlier draft agreement.
The document was later recorded as though the elderly homeowner had signed and acknowledged it.
The signature was disputed.
The notarial certificate contained inconsistencies.
And the developer's files did not contain a reliable original signed by the homeowner.
The investigators began examining whether the document had been intentionally falsified.
That required more than comparing handwriting by eye.
They reviewed the notary's records.
Obtained relevant communications.
Examined the document submission history.
And interviewed people involved in preparing and recording the instrument.
Then another discrepancy emerged.
The notary identified on the easement had ceased offering notarization services before the document's stated execution date.
Her commission history was available through official records.
The seal appearing on the document therefore raised serious questions.
The investigators contacted her.
She was a retired woman in her late sixties who lived outside Savannah.
She reviewed the document carefully.
Then shook her head.
"I didn't notarize this."
The investigator asked whether she recognized the signature.
"No."
"Is that your seal?"
The older woman studied the page.
"It resembles one I used years ago."
She looked up.
"But not on this date."
She provided the relevant information concerning her former commission and recordkeeping.
The investigators documented her account.
They also examined whether an image of her old seal had been retained in the development company's historical files.
That possibility proved significant.
Several years earlier, the company had used the same notary for legitimate transactions.
Scanned documents containing her seal remained in its electronic archives.
The investigators found that the disputed easement had been generated from an electronic document template containing fields copied from earlier files.
The precise source of the false notarial details required further examination.
But the discovery undermined the claim that the homeowner had personally appeared before the named notary and signed the agreement in the ordinary way.
The family attorney received notice of the developing findings through the appropriate channels.
She arranged a meeting with the father and son.
By then, the elderly man had returned from the hospital.
His medical team had completed its immediate evaluation and established a plan for continued care.
He remained tired.
His arm was sore.
And he moved more slowly than before.
But he was determined to understand what had happened.
The attorney visited the house.
They sat at the kitchen table.