Opinion ID: 853066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of David Good's Signature as a Carrier

Text: When a petition and remonstrance process is undertaken, the State Board of Accounts is responsible for delivering to the County Auditor both petition and remonstrance forms, and instructions for the collection of signatures. Ind.Code § 6-1.1-20-3.2(3). By law, those instructions must include the requirements that: (A) the carrier and signers must be owners of real property; (B) the carrier must be a signatory on at least one (1) petition; and (C) after the signatures have been collected, the carrier must swear or affirm before a notary public that the carrier witnessed each signature. Id. The instruction sheets furnished to the Auditor by the Board of Accounts included additional requirements governing who may sign, and in what form those signatures should be made, but had no specific instruction dealing with signatures by individuals signing on behalf of trusts or other legal entities. There seems to be no question that Good is the beneficial owner of real property located in the school corporation, and as trustee is also a record owner. David Good is co-trustee of the David A. Good and Norma Jean Good Revocable Living Trust, and as such has legal title to the trust's real property, which is located within the relevant school district. The Auditor's records indicated as much. However, Good did not indicate he was the owner of property as trustee, prompting the Auditor to disqualify his signature and the signatures he collected. We think it was clear enough who Good was and that, as trustee of a revocable trust created by himself and his wife, he was an owner of property within the district. The school argues that the disqualification was proper under Paragraph 11 of the Memorandum of Understanding that was agreed to by the Auditor, the school, and the Tax Awareness Committee prior to the gathering of signatures. The plaintiffs point out that Paragraph 11 uses the phrase should sign rather than shall sign or must sign. We agree that to the extent the Memorandum purports to impose an inflexible requirement that the capacity of a trustee be shown on the face of the signature, it conflicts with Indiana Code section 6-1.1-20-3.2. That section states that the verification of petitions and remonstrances must be done in the manner prescribed by the state board of accounts. Ind.Code § 6-1.1-20-3.2(4). This statute does not permit County Auditors to add their own requirements for the verification procedure. Although the Memorandum of Understanding may have indicated that trustees should sign in their official capacity, there is no such explicit requirement in section 6-1.1-20-3.2, and there was no such requirement on the instruction forms provided by the State Board of Accounts. The only rule in the instructions having to do with the content of the signatures stated: 7. All names should be written and printed neatly, and as they appear on the tax records in the Auditor's office as nearly as possible. By stating that the names should be written as nearly as possible as they appear on the actual tax records, this instruction requires only substantial, not exact, conformity with those records. Arguably the name is only David Good, even if his title is trustee. In any event, we think the Board of Accounts intended to allow imperfect identification so long as the signer can be readily identified in the Auditor's records as an owner of real property in the district. The Auditor testified that he had no difficulty identifying the signer David Good as the David Good listed in his records as an owner of real property as co-trustee of the David A. Good and Norma Jean Good Revocable Living Trust. Nor did he have any doubt as to who the carrier was. The signatures on the remonstrance forms Good carried should not have been excluded. To be sure, procedures are often necessary to the conduct of an orderly election or petition. But in a democracy we strongly favor permitting citizens to exercise their franchise. We sympathize with the school, which has undoubtedly expended significant effort and engaged in exhaustive analysis of its needs before undertaking this bond issue. Nevertheless, Indiana law permits a majority of signatures to defeat a proposal and the plaintiffs here present a substantial issue that they have done that. Signatures that do not violate any statutory or Board of Accounts directive should be counted if it is clear who the property owner is and that the person signing for that property is authorized to do so. Good's signature on behalf of his trust met those criteria. The Memorandum's provision that persons signing on behalf of entities should indicate their titles is not sufficient to override this general principle.