Affidavit Without Jurat Cases In Texas
In Laman v. Big Spring State Hospital, 970 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex.App.-- Eastland 1998, pet. denied), in reversing a summary judgment, the court held that even though the motion for summary judgment was supported by statements acknowledged before a notary public, because they did not contain proper jurats they were substantively defective and the objection could be raised for the first time on appeal.
See generally Perkins v. Crittenden, 462 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Tex. 1970) (holding that a jurat is not the same as an acknowledgment).
Similarly, in Ramirez v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 818, 829 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied), the court held that an objection to an affidavit on grounds that it states only a legal conclusion is one that relates to a defect of substance.