the documents and without his knowledge constitutes an improper alteration. Milligan implies that this conduct on the part of the notary, witness and the mortgagee was fraudulent and vitiated the transfer of the mortgage. Generally, in the absence of a specific statutory requirement, an acknowledgment is of no legal effect so far as the validity of an instrument is concerned and does not constitute a part of the instrument and does not affect its force. 1 Am. Jur. 2d Acknowledgment § 67 (1994). The liability of parties to the mortgage, inter se,is not affected by the absence or defect of an acknowledgment or other forms of proof. Harris v. Walbridge, 488 So. 2d 881 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986). See also Rogers v. Great American Fed. S&L Assn., 304 Ark. 143, 801 S.W.2d 36 (Ark. 1990) (<HOLDING>); Hunt v. Hunt, 110 Idaho 649, 718 P.2d 560,
holding that a defective acknowledgment does not affect the validity of a mortgage as to the parties holding that failure to follow state law requiring issuing judge to record testimony did not affect validity of warrant holding that shepard did not affect the continuing validity of almendareztorres holding that the subsequent tax treatment of an ira contribution does not affect the validity of the ira holding that the failure to properly caption and verify a petition did not affect the substantial rights of the parties