Fixture (property law)
A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property, permanently attached to real property Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which—in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale—is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Speaking the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land the article is a fixture. If the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is a chattel. Chattel property is converted into a fixture by the process of attachment. For example, if a piece of lumber sits in a lumber yard it is a chattel. If the same lumber is used to build a fence on the land it becomes a fixture to that real property. In many cases, the determination of whether property is a fixture or a chattel turns on the degree to which the property is attached to the land.
For example, this problem arises in the case of a trailer home. In this case the characterization of the home as chattel or realty will depend on how permanently it is attached—such as whether the trailer has a foundation; the characterization of property as a fixture or as chattel is important. In most jurisdictions, the law respecting the registration of security against debt, or proof that money has been lent on the collateral of property, is different for chattels than it is for real property. For example, in the province of Ontario, mortgages against real property must be registered in the county or region's land titles office. However, mortgages against chattels must be registered in the province-wide registry set up under the Personal Property Security Act. In the case of a trailer home, whether it is a fixture or chattel has a bearing on whether a real property mortgage applies to the trailer. For example, most mortgages contain a clause that forbids the borrower from removing or demolishing fixtures on the property, which would lower the value of the security.
However, there have been cases where lenders lend money based on the value of the trailer home on the property, where that trailer is removed from the property. A chattel mortgage granted to allow a person to purchase a trailer home could be lost if the trailer is attached to real property; the law regarding fixtures can cause many problems with property held under a lease. Fixtures put in place by the tenant belong to the landlord if the tenant is evicted from the property; this is the case if the fixture could have been removed by the tenant while the lease was in good standing. For example, a chandelier hung by the tenant may become the property of the landlord. Although this example is trivial, there have been cases where heavy equipment incorporated into a plant has been deemed to have become fixtures though it was sold as chattels; because the value of fixtures exceeds the value of the land they are affixed to, lawsuits to determine whether a particular item is a chattel or a fixture are common.
In one case in Canada, a provincial government argued that a huge earth dam was a chattel, as it was only held in place by gravity and not by any type of affixation. In a sale of land, fixtures are treated as part of the land, may not be removed or altered by the seller prior to the transfer of the land. Fixtures are known in civil law as essential parts. An important exception to the usual treatment of fixtures is the category of trade fixtures —chattels installed by a tenant on leased commercial property for their use in a trade or business; these may always be removed by the tenant, so long as any damage to the structure caused by the removal is repaid or repaired. For example, business signage, display counters, store shelves, liquor bars, machining equipment are firmly, if not permanently, attached to the building or land. However, they remain personal property and can be removed by the tenant, since they are part of the tenant's business; the economic logic behind this exception for trade fixtures reckons that if tenants could not remove them landlords would bear the responsibility of outfitting their tenants with such equipment and materials.
By deduction, therefore, a trade fixture is not a fixture at all. Its name is misleading, since a fixture, by definition, is real property that must remain with the real estate when a seller sells it or a tenant leaves her lease. A trade "fixture" is not personal property of the tenant; the landlord does have some protection. Any damage to the real property caused by the tenant’s removal of trade fixtures must be repaired or paid for by the tenant. If a trade fixture is not removed when the tenant moves out, those trade fixtures become the landlord’s property through the process of accession. For example, if a restaurant goes bankrupt and the owner forgoes his right and the expense of removing all the kitchen equipment, dining booths and other trade fixtures, those trade fixtures become the landlord's property. In this manner, they will no longer be trade fixtures and can become regular fixtures, hence real property. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the doctrine of fixtures, subject to statute, operates to resolve contests concerning title to objects.
Whether a chattel by its nature, becomes a fixture by virtue of all the circumstances, surrounding their annexation to land, depends upon the purpose and degree of annexation. Semble, it is a mixed question of fact and law, to be determined objectively, the subjective int
A deed is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and, signed, delivered, in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is associated with transferring title to property; the deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, licenses, patents and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds; the deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin. The traditional phrase signed and delivered refers to the practice of seals. Agreements under seal are called contracts by deed or specialty. In some jurisdictions, specialties have a liability limitation period of double that of a simple contract and allow for a third party beneficiary to enforce an undertaking in the deed, thereby overcoming the doctrine of privity. Specialties, as a form of contract, are bilateral and can therefore be distinguished from covenants, being under seal, are unilateral promises.
At common law, to be valid and enforceable, a deed must meet several requirements: It must state on its face that it is a deed, using wording like "This Deed..." or "executed as a deed". It must indicate that the instrument itself conveys some thing to someone; the grantor must have the legal ability to grant the thing or privilege, the grantee must have the legal capacity to receive it. It must be executed by the grantor in presence of the prescribed number of witnesses, known as instrumentary witnesses. In some jurisdictions, a seal must be affixed to it. Affixing seals made persons parties to the deed and signatures optional, but seals are now outdated in most jurisdictions, so the signatures of the grantor and witnesses are primary, it must be delivered to and, in some jurisdictions, accepted by the grantee. Conditions attached to the acceptance of a deed are known as covenants. A deed indented or indenture is one executed in two or more parts according to the number of parties, which were separated by cutting in a curved or indented line known as the chirograph.
A deed poll is one executed in one part, by one party, having the edge polled or cut and includes simple grants and appointments. In the transfer of real estate, a deed conveys ownership from the old owner to the new owner, can include various warranties; the precise name and nature of these warranties differ by jurisdiction. However, the basic differences between them is the degree to which the grantor warrants the title; the grantor may give a general warranty of title against any claims, or the warranty may be limited to only claims which occurred after the grantor obtained the real estate. The latter type of deed is known as a special warranty deed. While a general warranty deed was used for residential real estate sales and transfers, special warranty deeds are becoming more common and are more used in commercial transactions. A third type of deed, known as a bargain and sale deed, implies that the grantor has the right to convey title but makes no warranties against encumbrances; this type of deed is most used by court officials or fiduciaries that hold the property by force of law rather than title, such as properties seized for unpaid taxes and sold at sheriff's sale, or an executor.
A so-called quitclaim deed is not a deed at all—it is an estoppel disclaiming rights of the person signing it to property. In some jurisdictions, a deed of trust is used as an alternative to a mortgage. A deed of trust is not used to transfer property directly, it is used in some states — California, for example — to transfer title to land to a “trustee” a trust or title company, which holds the title as security for a loan. When the loan is paid off, title is transferred to the borrower by recording a release of the obligation, the trustee's contingent ownership is extinguished. Otherwise, upon default, the trustee will liquidate the property with a new deed and offset the lender's loss with the proceeds. Deed of arrangement – document setting out an arrangement for a debtor to pay part or all outstanding debts, as an alternative to bankruptcy. Deed of assignment – document in which a debtor appoints a trustee to take charge of property to pay debts or wholly, as an alternative to bankruptcy.
Sanad spelt as sunnud, was a deed granted to the rulers of native princely states in British India confirming them in their ruling position in return for their allegiance to the British Raj. Since the extinction of the royal bloodline would be a ground for annexation of a principality by the British, some rulers were granted sanads of adoption. Devised as a reward for loyalty to British rule in India after the Indian rebellion of 1857, such deeds gave a ruler the right to adopt chosen heirs from local noble families in case of lack of direct issue. Among the rulers that were given sanads of adoption, Takht Singh, Jaswant Singh of Bharatpur, as well as the rulers of Nagod State, Samthar State and the Chaube Jagirs are worth mentioning; the main clauses of a deed of conveyance are: Premises Parties clause – sets out the names and descriptions of parties Recitals – narrates in chronol
Escheat is a common law doctrine that transfers the real property of a person who died without heirs to the Crown or state. It serves to ensure, it applied to a number of situations where a legal interest in land was destroyed by operation of law, so that the ownership of the land reverted to the superior feudal lord. The term "escheat" derives from the Latin ex-cadere, to "fall-out", via mediaeval French escheoir; the sense is of a feudal estate in land falling-out of the possession by a family into possession by the overlord. In feudal England, escheat referred to the situation where the tenant of a fee died without an heir or committed a felony. In the case of such demise of a tenant-in-chief, the fee reverted to the King's demesne permanently, when it became once again a mere tenantless plot of land, but could be re-created as a fee by enfeoffment to another of the king's followers. Where the deceased had been subinfeudated by a tenant-in-chief, the fee reverted temporarily to the crown for one year and one day by right of primer seisin after which it escheated to the over-lord who had granted it to the deceased by enfeoffment.
From the time of Henry III, the monarchy took particular interest in escheat as a source of revenue. At the Norman Conquest of England all the land of England was claimed as the personal possession of William the Conqueror under allodial title; the monarch thus became the sole "owner" of all the land in the kingdom, a position which persists to the present day. He granted it out to his favoured followers, who thereby became tenants-in-chief, under various contracts of feudal land tenure; such tenures the highest one of "feudal barony", never conferred ownership of land but ownership of rights over it, to say ownership of an estate in land. Such persons are therefore termed "land-holders" or "tenants", not owners. If held, to say by freehold, such holdings were heritable by the holder's legal heir. On the payment of a premium termed feudal relief to the treasury, such heir was entitled to demand re-enfeoffment by the king with the fee concerned. Where no legal heir existed, the logic of the situation was that the fief had ceased to exist as a legal entity, since being tenantless no one was living, enfeoffed with the land, the land was thus technically owned by either the crown or the immediate overlord as ultimus heres.
Logically therefore it was in the occupation of the crown alone, to say in the royal demesne. This was the basic operation of a failure of heirs. Escheat could take place if a tenant was outlawed or convicted of a felony, when the King could exercise the ancient right of wasting the criminal's land for a year and a day, after that the land would return to the lord. Since disavowal of a feudal bond was considered a felony, lords could escheat land from those who refused to be true to their feudal services. On the other hand, there were tenants who were sluggish in performing their duties, while not being outright rebellious against the lord. Remedies in the courts against this sort of thing in Bracton's day, were available, but were considered laborious and ineffectual in compelling the desired performance; the commonest mechanism would be distraint called distress: the lord would seize some chattel, hold it until performance was achieved. This practice had been dealt with in the 1267 Statute of Marlborough.
So, it remained the most common extrajudicial method applied by the lords at the time of Quia Emptores. Thus, under English common law, there were two main ways an escheat could happen: A person's property escheated if he was convicted of a felony. If the person was executed for the crime, his heirs were attainted, i.e. ineligible to inherit. In most common-law jurisdictions, this type of escheat has been abolished outright, for example in the United States under Article 3 § 3 of the United States Constitution, which states that attainders for treason do not give rise to posthumous forfeiture, or "corruption of blood". If a person had no heir to receive their property under a will or under the laws of intestacy any property he owned at death would escheat; this rule has been replaced in most common-law jurisdictions by a similar concept. From the 12th century onward, the Crown appointed escheators to manage escheats and report to the Exchequer, with one escheator per county established by the middle of the 14th century.
Upon the death of a tenant-in-chief, the escheator would be instructed by a writ of diem clausit extremum issued by the king's chancery, to empanel a jury to hold an "inquisition post mortem" to ascertain who the legal heir was, if any, what was the extent of the land held. Thus it would be revealed, it was important for the king to know who the heir was, to assess his personal qualities, since he would thenceforth form a constituent part of the royal army, if he held under military tenure. If there was any doubt, the escheator would sei
Real estate is "property consisting of land and the buildings on it, along with its natural resources such as crops, minerals or water. Also: the business of real estate, it is a legal term used in jurisdictions whose legal system is derived from English common law, such as India, Wales, Northern Ireland, United States, Pakistan and New Zealand. Residential real estate may contain either a single family or multifamily structure, available for occupation or for non-business purposes. Residences can be classified by. Different types of housing tenure can be used for the same physical type. For example, connected residences might be owned by a single entity and leased out, or owned separately with an agreement covering the relationship between units and common areas and concerns. Major categoriesAttached / multi-unit dwellings Apartment or Flat – An individual unit in a multi-unit building; the boundaries of the apartment are defined by a perimeter of locked or lockable doors. Seen in multi-story apartment buildings.
Multi-family house – Often seen in multi-story detached buildings, where each floor is a separate apartment or unit. Terraced house – A number of single or multi-unit buildings in a continuous row with shared walls and no intervening space. Condominium – A building or complex, similar to apartments, owned by individuals. Common grounds and common areas within the complex are shared jointly. In North America, there are rowhouse style condominiums as well; the British equivalent is a block of flats. Cooperative – A type of multiple ownership in which the residents of a multi-unit housing complex own shares in the cooperative corporation that owns the property, giving each resident the right to occupy a specific apartment or unit. Semi-detached dwellings Duplex – Two units with one shared wall. Detached dwellings Detached house or single-family detached house Portable dwellings Mobile homes or residential caravans – A full-time residence that can be movable on wheels. Houseboats – A floating home Tents – Usually temporary, with roof and walls consisting only of fabric-like material.
The size of an apartment or house can be described in square meters. In the United States, this includes the area of "living space", excluding the garage and other non-living spaces; the "square meters" figure of a house in Europe may report the total area of the walls enclosing the home, thus including any attached garage and non-living spaces, which makes it important to inquire what kind of surface area definition has been used. It can be described more by the number of rooms. A studio apartment has a single bedroom with no living room. A one-bedroom apartment has a dining room separate from the bedroom. Two bedroom, three bedroom, larger units are common. Other categoriesChawls Villas HavelisThe size of these is measured in Gaz, Marla and acre. See List of house types for a complete listing of housing types and layouts, real estate trends for shifts in the market, house or home for more general information, it is common practice for an intermediary to provide real estate owners with dedicated sales and marketing support in exchange for commission.
In North America, this intermediary is referred to as a real estate broker, or a real estate agent in everyday conversation, whilst in the United Kingdom, the intermediary would be referred to as an estate agent. In Australia the intermediary is referred to as a real estate agent or real estate representative or the agent
Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor, of all other interests recorded on the register. The interests that are not guaranteed are called "paramount interests". Ownership of land is transferred by registration of a transfer of title, instead of by the use of deeds; the Registrar would provide a Certificate of Title to the new proprietor, a copy of the related folio of the register. The main benefit of the system is to enhance certainty of title to land and to simplify dealings involving land; the system has been adopted by many countries those in the Commonwealth of Nations, has been extended to cover other interests, including credit interests and strata titles. The design and introduction in 1858 of the Torrens system in South Australia is attributed to Sir Robert Richard Torrens, Premier of the colony, though some attribute the design to another.
The Torrens title system operates on the principle of "title by registration" rather than "registration of title". The system does away with the need for proving a chain of title; the State guarantees title and is supported by a compensation scheme for those who lose their title due to private fraud or error in the State's operation. In most jurisdictions, there will be parcels of land; the Torrens system works on three principles: Mirror principle – the register reflects and the current facts about title to each registered lot. This means that each dealing affecting a lot must be entered on the register and so be viewable by anyone. Curtain principle – one does not need to go behind the Certificate of Title as it contains all the information about the title; this means that ownership need not be proved by long complicated documents that are kept by the owner, as in the Private Conveyancing system. All of the necessary information regarding ownership is on the Certificate of Title. Indemnity principle – provides for compensation of loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the Registrar of Titles.
At common law, the vendor of land needs to show his or her ownership of the land by tracing the chain of ownership back to the earliest grant of land by the Crown to its first owner. The documents relating to transactions with the land are collectively known as the "title deeds" or the "chain of title"; this event may have occurred hundreds of years prior and could have had dozens of intervened changes in the land's ownership. A person's ownership over land could be challenged causing great legal expense to land owners and hindering development. An exhaustive title search of the chain of title would not give the purchaser complete security because of the principle, nemo dat quod non habet and the ever-present possibility of undetected outstanding interests. For example, in the UK Court of Chancery case Pilcher v Rawlins, the vendor conveyed the fee-simple estate to P1, but retained the title deeds and fraudulently purported to convey the fee-simple estate to P2; the latter could receive only the title retained by the vendor -- in nothing.
However, the case was decided in favor of P2, over P1. The courts of equity could not bring themselves to decide against a innocent purchaser; the common-law position has been changed in minor respects by legislation designed to minimize the searches that should be undertaken by a prospective purchaser. In some jurisdictions, a limitation has been placed on the period of commencement of title a purchaser may require; the effect of registration under the deeds registration system was to give the instrument registered "priority" over all instruments that are either unregistered or not registered until later. The basic difference between the deeds registration and Torrens systems is that the former involves registration of instruments while the latter involves registration of title. Moreover, though a register of who owned what land was maintained, it was unreliable and could be challenged in the courts at any time; the limits of the deeds-registration system meant that transfers of land were slow and unable to create certain title.
A boom in land speculation and a haphazard grant system resulted in the loss of over 75% of the 40,000 land grants issued in the colony of South Australia in the early 1800s. To resolve the deficiencies of the common law and deeds registration system, Robert Torrens, a member of the colony's House of Assembly, proposed a new title system in 1858, it was adopted; the Torrens title system was based on a central registry of all the land in the jurisdiction of South Australia, embodied in the Real Property Act 1886. All transfers of land are recorded in the register. Most ownership of the land is established by virtue of the owner's name being recorded in the government's register; the Torrens title records easements and the creation and discharge of mortgages. The historical origins of the Torrens title are a matter of considerable controversy. Torrens himself acknowledged adapting his proposals from earlier systems of transfer and registration the system of registration of merchant ships in the United Kingdom.
The Prussian mortgage legislation served as an example. James E. H
The Discovery doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, most notably Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823. Chief Justice John Marshall explained and applied the way that colonial powers laid claim to lands belonging to foreign sovereign nations during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to lands lay with the government whose subjects travelled to and occupied a territory whose inhabitants were not subjects of a European Christian monarch; the doctrine has been used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments. The 1823 case was the result of collusive lawsuits where land speculators worked together to make claims to achieve a desired result. John Marshall explained the Court's reasoning; the decision has been the subject of a number of law review articles and has come under increased scrutiny by modern legal theorists. The Doctrine of Discovery was promulgated by European monarchies in order to legitimize the colonization of lands outside of Europe.
Between the mid-fifteenth century and the mid-twentieth century, this idea allowed European entities to seize lands inhabited by indigenous peoples under the guise of discovery. In 1494, the Treaty of Tordesillas declared that only non-Christian lands could be colonized under the Discovery Doctrine. In 1792, U. S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson declared that the Doctrine of the Discovery would extend from Europe to the infant U. S. government. The Doctrine and its legacy continue to influence American imperialism and treatment of indigenous peoples; the plaintiff Johnson had inherited land purchased from the Piankeshaw tribes. Defendant McIntosh claimed the same land, it appears that in 1775 members of the Piankeshaw tribe sold certain land in the Indiana Territory to Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia and others. In 1805 the Piankeshaw conveyed much of the same land to William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory, thus giving rise to conflicting claims of title. In reviewing whether the courts of the United States should recognize land titles obtained from Native Americans prior to American independence, the court decided that they should not.
Chief Justice John Marshall had large real estate holdings that would have been affected if the case were decided in favor of Johnson. Rather than recuse himself from the case, the Chief Justice wrote the decision for a unanimous Supreme Court. Marshall found that ownership of land comes into existence by virtue of discovery of that land, a rule, observed by all European countries with settlements in the New World; the United States was the true owner of the land because it inherited that ownership from Britain, the original discoverer. Marshall noted: On the discovery of this immense continent, the great nations of Europe... as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, consequent war with each other, to establish a principle which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession....
The history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles. Chief Justice Marshall noted the 1455 papal bull Romanus Pontifex approved Portugal's claims to lands discovered along the coast of West Africa, the 1493 Inter Caetera had ratified Spain's right to conquer newly found lands, after Christopher Columbus had begun doing so, but stated: "Spain did not rest her title on the grant of the Pope, her discussions respecting boundary, with France, with Great Britain, with the United States, all show that she placed it on the rights given by discovery. Portugal sustained her claim to the Brazils by the same title." Marshall pointed to the exploration charters given to John Cabot as proof that the British had operated under the doctrine. The tribes which occupied the land were, at the moment of discovery, no longer sovereign and had no property rights but rather held a right of occupancy. Further, only the discovering nation or its successor could take possession of the land from the natives by conquest or purchase.
The doctrine was cited in other cases as well. With Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, it supported the concept that tribes were not independent states but "domestic dependent nations"; the decisions in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe and Duro v. Reina used the doctrine to prohibit tribes from criminally prosecuting first non-Indians Indians who were not a member of the prosecuting tribe; the doctrine has been cited by the US Supreme Court as as 2005, in City of Sherrill, NY v. Oneida Nation: "Under the'doctrine of discovery...' Fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign-first the discovering European nation and the original states and the United States." The Doctrine of Discovery was promulgated by European monarchies in order to legitimize the colonization of lands outside of Europe. Between the mid-fifteenth century and the mid-twentieth century, this idea allowed European entities to seize lands inhabited by indigenous peoples under the guise of discovery.
In 1494, the Treaty of Tordesillas declared that only non-Christian lands could be colonized under the Discovery Doctrine. In 1792, U. S. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson declared that the Doctrine of the Discover
A quitclaim deed is a legal instrument, used to transfer interest in real property. The entity transferring its interest is called the grantor, when the quitclaim deed is properly completed and executed, it transfers any interest the grantor has in the property to a recipient, called the grantee; the owner/grantor terminates any right and claim to the property, thereby allowing the right or claim to transfer to the recipient/grantee. Unlike most other property deeds, a quitclaim deed contains no title covenant and thus offers the grantee no warranty as to the status of the property title; this means that the grantor does not guarantee that he or she owns any interest in the property at the time of the transfer, or if he or she does own an interest, that the title is free and clear. It is, possible for a grantee to receive no actual interest, – because a quitclaim deed offers no warranty – have no legal recourse to recover any losses. Further, if the grantor should acquire the property at a date, the grantee is not entitled to take possession, because the grantee can only receive the interest the grantor held at the time the transfer occurred.
In contrast, other deeds used for real estate sales contain warranties from the grantor to the grantee that the title is clear or that the grantor has not placed any encumbrance against the title. Because of this lack of warranty, quitclaim deeds are most used to transfer property between family members, as gifts, placing personal property into a business entity or in other special or unique circumstances. An example use for a quitclaim deed is in divorce, whereby one spouse terminates any interest in the jointly owned marital home, thereby granting the receiving spouse full rights to the property. For example, when one spouse acquires the marital home in a divorce settlement, the other spouse could execute a quitclaim deed eliminating their interest in the property and transferring full claim to the other spouse and inexpensively. In some jurisdictions, quitclaim deeds are used in tax deed sales, where a property is sold in a public auction to recover the original homeowner’s outstanding tax debt.
The auctioning body is the local government, which claims no interest to the property whatsoever, but is selling only to recover the unpaid taxes without extending any warranty for the property title. The purchaser may need to initiate a quiet title action to remove any clouds to the title. In many jurisdictions, quitclaim deeds are used to transfer property from seller to buyer in a traditional property sale: the grantor and grantee have an existing relationship, or the grantor and grantee are the same person, but in others, such as Massachusetts, quitclaim deeds are the norm. Execution of a quitclaim deed is simple, requires little more than both parties signing the deed and, if required in the state where it is executed, having the deed notarized, acknowledged before a notary or with a jurat signed before a notary. A jurat known as a verification upon oath or affirmation, is a form of notarization in which the affiant appears before a notary, swears to the truth of the contents of the document, signs the document in front of the notary