Mansions in the Forest, L.P. v. Montgomery County, 365 S.W.3d 314

Landowners' property in Montgomery County was taken for widening Farm to Market Road 1488 under eminent domain; the commissioners awarded $345,215 for seized land and damages, deposited into court, and a writ of possession issued to the County.
Landowners challenged the award; the County moved for summary judgment arguing no evidence of damages or that only competent evidence was a County appraiser's report valuing the property and damages at $326,215.
Landowners filed a purported affidavit by Matthew Hiles asserting at least $800,000 in value; the affidavit lacked a sworn oath and the notary certified that Hiles acknowledged rather than swore to the statements.
Trial court sustained objections, excluded Hiles's affidavit, and granted summary judgment for $326,215; on appeal, the County raised new objections including lack of jurat, and the court of appeals affirmed.
Supreme Court held that neither the Government Code nor Rule 166a(f) requires a jurat; but if there is no indication that the affiant swore before an officer, the statement is not an affidavit and error is waived if not objected to in the trial court; the court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether absence of a jurat is a preservable error	Hiles affidavit is not required to have a jurat; sworn status is determined by record evidence.	Lack of jurat is a substantive defect that can be raised on appeal if not objected at trial.	Waived if not objected at trial; not preserved for review.
Whether the purported Hiles affidavit met the Government Code definition of affidavit	Affidavit sworn to before an authorized officer; jurat not mandatory.	Record shows no sworn oath; thus not an affidavit under the Government Code.	Not an affidavit because there is no indication it was sworn.
Whether the preservation rules apply to preserve appellate review of the alleged affidavit defect	Error should be reviewable given statutory requirements for affidavits in summary judgment.	General preservation rules apply; any objection must be made in trial court.	County forfeited by not raising the objection at trial; issue not preserved.

Perkins v. Crittenden, 462 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. 1970) (jurat is not required to satisfy oath but relates to affidavit requirements)
Hardy v. Beaty, 19 S.W. 778 (Tex. 1892) (unsigned statements not affidavits)
Life Ins. Co. of Va. v. Gar-Dal, Inc., 570 S.W.2d 378 (Tex. 1978) (Rule 166a(f) governs summary judgment evidence by affidavit)
Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1995) (statutory requirements for affidavits interpreted)
Ryland Grp., Inc. v. Hood, 924 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. 1996) (Rule 166a(f) and sworn representations in affidavits)