Opinion ID: 625817
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lien Affidavit

Text: Ogle’s objection to S&S’s claim is that S&S failed to secure a lien against the De Garza Wells. Under Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code, to secure a lien against mineral property, a lien claimant must file an affidavit with the county clerk of the county in which the property is located. Tex. Prop. Code § 56.021(a). Texas law defines an affidavit as a “statement in writing of a fact or facts signed by the party making it, sworn1 to before an officer authorized to administer oaths, and officially certified to by the officer under his seal of office.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 312.011(1). That is, an affidavit must be sworn to or affirmed before an authorized third party (such as a notary), who must certify that the affiant so swore to or affirmed the statement at issue. Guinn v. Bosque Cnty., 58 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied). This certification is known as the “jurat.” Id. Without a jurat, a statement is not an “affidavit.” Id. A mere acknowledgment that a document was executed for a particular purpose is insufficient. Blanco, Inc. v. Porras, 897 F.2d 788, 792 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Perkins v. Crittenden, 462 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. 1970) The central dispute is whether the notary’s certification in this case was a jurat or just a mere acknowledgment. The crux of this inquiry is whether the affiant was sworn in the notary’s presence. This distinction between a valid jurat and a mere acknowledgment becomes clear when we compare two cases we discussed in Blanco—Norcross v. Conoco, Inc. and Crockett v. Sampson. In Norcross, the Fourth Court of Appeals found a valid jurat where a notary certified a document containing the language Before me, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared JOHN W. NORCROSS, the defendant in the above 1 The term “sworn” includes that which is “affirmed.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 312.011(16). 4 Case: 11-20777 Document: 00511794479 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 No. 11-20777 entitled and numbered cause, and after having been duly sworn, did state that . . . 720 S.W.2d 627, 629–630 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1986, no writ) (emphasis added); see also Choctaw Properties, L.L.C. v. Aledo I.S.D., 127 S.W.3d 235, 242 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, no pet.); Griffin v. Baylor College of Medicine, 945 S.W.2d 158, 159–60 (Tex. App.–Houston 1997, no writ). In Crockett, by contrast, the Third Court of Appeals found invalid a document that stated, “Sidney Sampson, Affiant, makes oath and says . . . ” and the notary certified Before me, Edith Ricketson, a Notary Public, in and for the State and County aforesaid, on this day personally appeared Sidney Sampson known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purpose and consideration therein expressed. 439 S.W.2d 355, 357, 360 (Tex. App.–Austin 1969, no writ); see also Perkins, 462 S.W.2d at 566, 568. Therefore, under Texas law, where the notary fails to certify that it he witnessed the oath, there is no jurat. This distinction accords with our holding in Blanco. There, we held valid “Blanton’s self-styled ‘affidavit,’” which began: “‘[B]efore me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared ZANE BLANTON, president of Blanco, Inc., . . . who, upon his oath, deposed and stated . . . ’ and conclude[d] with a notary’s seal and acknowledgement that the document was executed as the act of Blanco.” Blanco, 897 F.2d at 792. In Blanco, like in Norcross, the notary specifically referenced the affiant’s oath. This case strikes us as quite similar to Crockett. Like Crockett, Jordan in his purported affidavit makes his statements under oath. Compare supra (“Affiant, Bruce M. Jordan, on oath swears . . . ”) with Crockett, 439 S.W.2d at 355 (“Sidney Sampson, Affiant, makes oath and says . . . ”). Also like Crockett, the certification does not contain any language showing that the oath was sworn 5 Case: 11-20777 Document: 00511794479 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/20/2012 No. 11-20777 in the notary’s presence. Absent such a certification, there is no jurat and consequently, no valid affidavit. Crockett, 439 S.W.2d at 358.