Opinion ID: 2062029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Verification of Petition

Text: The Administrative Adjudication Act requires that a petition for judicial review be verified. Indiana Code § 4-22-1-14 states: Any party or person aggrieved by an order or determination made by any such agency shall be entitled to a judicial review thereof in accordance with the provisions of this act. Such review may be had by filing with the circuit or superior court of the county in which such person resides, or in any county in which such order or determination is to be carried out or enforced, a verified petition. The Act does not specifically indicate who may verify a petition for judicial review on behalf of a corporation. The Court of Appeals has held that verification may be made only by the corporation's executive or administrative officers. Gary Community Mental Health Center, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Public Welfare (1986), Ind. App., 496 N.E.2d 1341; Community Care Centers, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Public Welfare (1984), Ind. App., 468 N.E.2d 602. In support of its holding, the Community Care court cited Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Carroll (1917), 186 Ind. 633, 117 N.E. 858. In Fidelity, this Court held that an affidavit required by statute to support a petition for a change of judge on grounds of bias must be made by an executive or administrative officer of the party corporation, not by its agent or attorney. The petitioner was a New York corporation doing business in Indiana, and the affidavit in support of its motion was made by the corporation's Indiana district manager. The controlling statute directed that a change of venue be granted when either party shall make and file an affidavit of the bias, prejudice, or interest of the judge before whom the said cause is pending. Id. at 634, 117 N.E. at 859, quoting Ind. Code § 422 (Burns 1914). The Fidelity Court found that the language of the statute at issue required that an affidavit for a change of venue from the judge on the ground of bias, prejudice or interest must be made by the party, and not by his agent or attorney... . Id. at 635, 117 N.E. at 859 (emphasis in original). The Court's rationale proceeded on the theory that in a broad sense a corporation always acts through an agent, and can act in no other way but that there were certain situations in which the corporation could act for itself through some agency inherent in its corporate form. Id. at 635, 117 N.E. at 859, quoting 2 Thompson, Corporations § 1387 (2d ed.). Three aspects of Fidelity make it less valuable as precedent for the case at bar. First, the statute at issue in Fidelity required that the party shall make ... an affidavit, while the statute in the instant case does not specify who shall make the required verification. Second, the district manager in the Fidelity case had no express, implied, or apparent authority to act on behalf of the corporation in the litigation. Third, the reference to the validity of an affidavit made by a corporation's attorney was dictum; Fidelity's attorney did not attempt to verify the petition. A corporation is a creature of statute and can neither practice law nor act in person. Out of court it must act through its agents, and in court it must generally act only through an agent who is a licensed attorney. The fundamental principles regarding the authority of an agent of a corporation are substantially the same as those applicable to agents generally. Cushman v. Cloverland Coal & Mining Co. (1908), 170 Ind. 402, 84 N.E. 759. The authority of an attorney to act as agent for a corporation may be express or implied. Express authority may be provided in the charter, the by-laws of the corporation, in a resolution of the board of directors not inconsistent with the by-laws, or other written authority such as a memorandum or letter. Implied authority depends on the actual relationship of the corporation and the agent, and not what others may believe about that relationship. Implied authority of an agent binds a corporation only if the agent is performing an act that is appropriate in the ordinary course of a corporation's business; it includes incidental authority necessary, usual, and proper to effectuate the main authority expressly conferred. See Cushman, 170 Ind. at 405, 84 N.E. at 760. Implied authority may also arise from a course of conduct showing that the corporation has repeatedly ratified acts of the same kind. An attorney acting as agent for a corporation may only perform acts within the authority granted to him by the corporation. This authority must be within the powers expressly conferred upon the corporation by its charter or by statute. Under the Indiana General Corporation Act, Ind. Code § 23-1-1-1 et seq., [2] a corporation's general rights, privileges and powers included the power [t]o sue and be sued in its corporate name, Ind. Code § 23-1-2-2(b)(2), [t]o appoint such officers and agents as the business of the corporation may require, Ind. Code § 23-1-2-2(b)(8) (emphasis added), and [t]o do all acts and things necessary, convenient or expedient to carry out the purposes for which it is formed. Ind. Code § 23-1-2-2(b)(15). Chair Lance had the statutory authority to appoint an attorney as its agent to exercise its power to sue in its corporate name. Incidental acts necessary and proper to effectuate this express authority include verification of pleadings if the attorney is in the position to have personal knowledge of the verified facts. Chair Lance's attorney had express authority to sue on its behalf. The attorney also had personal knowledge of the facts in the verified petition. The verification of this petition by the corporation's attorneys is consistent with the purpose of the statute's verification requirement because the attorney who verified the petition was in the position to know first hand about the subject matter of the appeal. Where the corporation has conferred actual authority on its agents to act in a capacity within the scope of its powers, in a manner consistent with the creating statute, we will not further restrict the corporation. Applying well-settled agency principles will promote the interests of third parties in predictability and uniformity and conform to the legislative intent of the statutes creating the corporation. Accordingly, we conclude that the Chair Lance petition for judicial review was adequately verified. To the extent that the holdings in Community Care and Gary Community Mental Health are to the contrary, they are disapproved.