 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Apsey v. Memorial Hospital6/9/2005
ed the document and it does not require a clerk of a court to perform the authenticating function. The majority's reliance on and interpretation of the sentence "Nothing in this act diminishes or invalidates the recognition accorded to notarial acts by other laws of this state," found in MCL 565.268 is misguided. The key phrase in that sentence is "the recognition accorded to notarial acts." Reasonably interpreted, the sentence does not eviscerate the effect of the URAA or buttress the applicability of MCL 600.2102. That is, rather than decreasing or limiting the recognition accorded notarial acts, the URAA broadens the recognition accorded to notarial acts. The majority's reasoning also creates a double standard with respect to affidavits that will be read in judicial proceedings versus those that will not. This seems to create logistical problems in that affidavits typically have the potential of ending up in a judicial proceeding, sometimes years after the notarial act was performed, although litigation was not anticipated at the time the affidavit was notarized.
Further, contrary to the majority's claim, my interpretation of the harmonious nature of the URAA and MCL 600.2102 does not "clearly diminish the requirements of MCL 600.2102." Although it is apparent that the simple method of authentication permitted by the URAA likely makes obsolete the certification method provided by MCL 600.2102, it is still an alternative method of verifying the authenticity of notarial acts. We may not question the wisdom of a statute or inquire as to the methods of the Legislature. See Smith v Cliffs on the Bay Condominium Ass'n, 463 Mich 420, 430; 617 NW2d 536 (2000); McDonald Pontiac-Cadillac-GMC, Inc v Saginaw Co Prosecutor, 150 Mich App 52, 55; 388 NW2d 301 (1986). It may well be that advances in technology, particularly communications and information technology, led to this development of law. In any event, our goal is simply to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc, 468 Mich 594, 597; 664 NW2d 705 (2003). Consistent with that directive, and cognizant of our duty to attempt to reconcile statutes so as to avoid conflict, I must conclude that the URAA, particularly MCL 565.263, and MCL 600.2102 are alternative and viable means of proving notarial acts. See People v Webb, 458 Mich 265, 274; 580 NW2d 884 (1998).
Accordingly, on reconsideration I conclude that the affidavit of merit filed in this matter was sufficient and effective on its face. Therefore, I would reverse the trial court's dismissal of this action on the ground that the affidavit of merit was a nullity and remand the matter back to the trial court for continued proceedings.
Mark J. Cavanagh
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|