Opinion ID: 1658393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Establishing a Sworn Statement in the Absence of a Completed Jurat.

Text: The first issue on appeal concerns the claimant's effort to establish that his original claim was in fact sworn, although the jurat had not been completed. He urges that our decision in Dalbey Brothers Lumber Co. v. Crispin, 234 Iowa 151, 12 N.W.2d 277 (1943), permits a court to find that a statement of claim has been sworn by reference to the language of the claim. Applying his interpretation of Dalbey to the facts of the present case, claimant urges the district court should have concluded his claim was sworn by virtue of the language, preceding the signature of his attorney, reciting the undersigned, being duly sworn (or affirmed). Examination of the Dalbey case convinces us that the result was based upon independent proof that an oath had been administered. The language of Iowa Code section 622.85 (1985) requires that an affidavit be made under oath ... before any person authorized to administer oaths within or without the state. We believe independent proof of the administration of the oath is ordinarily necessary in order to cure the absence of a jurat on an instrument. In 1984 the legislature, in enacting what is now Iowa Code section 622.1 (1985), made certain provisions for self-verifying statements under oath, but the form of the present claim does not satisfy the requirements of that statute. We conclude the claimant has failed to establish the claim filed on May 10, 1984, was sworn or accompanied by an affidavit.