Opinion ID: 843027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the uraa provides an alternative method of attestation and authentication

Text: The URAA and MCL 600.2102(4) require different certifications for out-of-state affidavits. MCL 600.2102 provides, in part: In cases where by law the affidavit of any person residing in another state of the United States, or in any foreign country, is required, or may be received in judicial proceedings in this state, to entitle the same to be read, it must be authenticated as follows:    (4) If such affidavit be taken in any other of the United States or in any territory thereof, it may be taken before a commissioner duly appointed and commissioned by the governor of this state to take affidavits therein, or before any notary public or justice of the peace authorized by the laws of such state to administer oaths therein. The signature of such notary public or justice of the peace, and the fact that at the time of the taking of such affidavit the person before whom the same was taken was such notary public or justice of the peace, shall be certified by the clerk of any court of record in the county where such affidavit shall be taken, under the seal of said court. [Emphasis added.] MCL 565.262(a) defines notarial acts under the URAA. It provides, in part: Notarial acts means acts that the laws of this state authorize notaries public of this state to perform, including the administering of oaths and affirmations, taking proof of execution and acknowledgments of instruments, and attesting documents. Notarial acts may be performed outside this state for use in this state with the same effect as if performed by a notary public of this state by the following persons authorized pursuant to the laws and regulations of other governments in addition to any other person authorized by the laws of this state: (i) A notary public authorized to perform notarial acts in the place in which the act is performed. [Emphasis added.] It is undisputed that an affidavit is a notarial act that is controlled by the URAA. [3] On first review, these statutes appear to be in conflict. The Court of Appeals majority was troubled by this and struggled to make the two fit together. But, in attempting to harmonize them, the Court of Appeals majority severely limited the reach and application of the URAA in ways unsupported by the text of the URAA and unintended by the Legislature. While it was appropriate for the Court of Appeals to read the statutes in pari materia, [4] the Court's method of doing so was incorrect. The Legislature has provided guidance on how to read the statutes in the URAA. The Court of Appeals should have used it before attempting other means of harmonizing the statutes. In MCL 565.268, the Legislature indicated how the URAA was meant to interact with MCL 600.2102. MCL 565.268 provides: A notarial act performed prior to the effective date of this act is not affected by this act. This act provides an additional method of proving notarial acts. Nothing in this act diminishes or invalidates the recognition accorded to notarial acts by other laws of this state. [Emphasis added.] Although the Court of Appeals majority took note of MCL 565.268, it focused on the last sentence to the exclusion of the others. It reasoned that, because the URAA does not diminish MCL 600.2102(4), this must mean that the Legislature intended MCL 600.2102(4) to trump the requirements of the URAA. But this reasoning is not supported by the complete text of MCL 565.268. The final sentence must be read in light of what precedes it. The second sentence of MCL 565.268 indicates that the URAA is an additional or alternative method of proving notarial acts. As an additional method, the URAA does not replace the prior method. Instead, it is intended to stand as a coequal with it. Because the two methods are alternative and coequal, the URAA does not diminish or invalidate the recognition accorded to notarial acts by other laws of this state. MCL 565.268. Simply, MCL 600.2102(4) is not invalidated by the URAA. It remains an additional method of attestation of out-of-state affidavits. Because the two methods exist as alternatives, a party may use either to validate an affidavit. Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, [5] a phrase must be read in context. A phrase must be construed in light of the phrases around it, not in a vacuum. Its context gives it meaning. Koontz v. Ameritech Services, Inc., 466 Mich. 304, 318, 645 N.W.2d 34 (2002). Similarly, it is a well-settled rule of law that, when construing a statute, a court must read it as a whole. G C Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co., 468 Mich. 416, 421, 662 N.W.2d 710 (2003); Arrowhead Dev. Co. v. Livingston Co. Rd. Comm., 413 Mich. 505, 516, 322 N.W.2d 702 (1982); Layton v. Seward Corp., 320 Mich. 418, 427, 31 N.W.2d 678 (1948). Without proper adherence to this rule, the Court of Appeals could not effectuate the intent behind the URAA. The Court of Appeals rejected the interpretation we use in the belief that reading the URAA as an alternative method of authenticating out-of-state affidavits would render MCL 600.2102(4) nugatory. Of course, a reviewing court should not interpret a statute in such a manner as to render it nugatory. Warren, 462 Mich. at 429 n. 24, 615 N.W.2d 691. A statute is rendered nugatory when an interpretation fails to give it meaning or effect. [6] But our interpretation of MCL 565.268 does no such damage to MCL 600.2102(4). Because the URAA does not repeal MCL 600.2102, the latter provision remains in effect as a viable means of authenticating out-of-state affidavits. If a party chooses to use it, the affidavit can be admitted as evidence just as if the party had decided to follow the URAA. MCL 600.2102(4) has the same meaning and effect after the enactment of the URAA as it did before. At both times, it was a viable means of authenticating an out-of-state affidavit. We question how the Legislature could have signaled more clearly its intent that the URAA should function as an alternative to MCL 600.2102 than by stating that the URAA provides an additional method of proving notarial acts. MCL 565.268. The Legislature need not repeal every law in a given area before it enacts new laws that it intends to operate in addition to their preexisting counterparts. The Legislature has the power to enact laws to function and interact as it sees fit. And when it does so, this Court is bound to honor its intent. In this case, the Legislature made its intent clear through MCL 565.268. By enacting the URAA, it wished to create an additional method of authentication. [7] We must respect this decision. Despite its likely decreased use in light of the URAA's less rigorous requirements, MCL 600.2102(4) still has meaning. Hence, it is not rendered nugatory. [8] Also, MCL 600.2102(4) is not rendered nugatory because it provides for the Governor to appoint a commissioner to authenticate out-of-state affidavits. Under the statute's language, Michigan's Governor could appoint a person who is not a notary to authenticate affidavits in any state or territory of the United States. MCL 600.2102(4). Such affidavits likely would not be admissible under the URAA. But they could be used because of MCL 600.2102(4). Given this, MCL 600.2102 is not rendered nugatory under our interpretation of the URAA. Instead, it has valid meaning and effect, even if it is rarely used. By contrast, a strict application of MCL 600.2102 as the only method of authenticating affidavits would render part of MCL 565.268 nugatory. Only by ignoring the sentence [t]his act provides an additional method of proving notarial acts could we arrive at defendants' desired outcome. As discussed earlier, there is no reason to do so when we can provide both statutes full meaning as alternatives to one another. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. [9] MCL 565.268 lays out how the Legislature intended to deal with MCL 600.2102 and the URAA. The URAA is an additional method of authenticating out-of-state affidavits, and either method may be used as an alternative to the other. [10] Because plaintiffs complied with the URAA, their affidavit was admissible.