Opinion
No. 78-985
Decided March 29, 1979. Rehearing denied April 26, 1979. Certiorari denied July 2, 1979.
Liquor licensee appealed from district court judgment which approved city's revocation of its license on the ground that verification of the license application was improper.
Reversed
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — License Application — Verification of Contents — Mandatory — Amendment — Allowable Until Hearing. The requirement that the contents of a liquor license application be verified is mandatory; however, the application may be amended prior to or at the hearing to review the application in order to correct or add information thereto, and thus, a proper verification for an application can be supplied prior to or at the hearing on the application; consequently, liquor licensee's failure to verify properly its application prior to the expiration date for filing a renewal application was not fatal to the application inasmuch as a hearing on the application was, in fact, held after the filing period had expired.
Appeal from the District Court of the County of Arapahoe, Honorable Richard D. Greene, Judge.
Keller, Dunievitz Johnson, Alex Stephen Keller, for plaintiff-appellant.
Douglas G. McKinnon, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff, Mr. Lucky's, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the district court which approved the revocation of its liquor license by the City of Glendale. We reverse.
The parties stipulated to the facts which are pertinent to this appeal. Plaintiff held a liquor license in Glendale. In November 1977, plaintiff filed its application for renewal of that license for 1978, and the application was approved by Glendale in December of 1977.
In January of 1978, Glendale issued an order to show cause why plaintiff's license should not be suspended or revoked. In support of the order, the required notice alleged that the signature of plaintiff's president on the renewal application was a forgery and that the president had not signed the application, in violation of § 12-47-135(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). At the show cause hearing before the Glendale City Council, an affidavit of plaintiff's president was admitted as an exhibit and stands uncontroverted. The affidavit stated that, "the renewal application . . . is true and accurate in all respects, and all answers therein were and are truthful." The affidavit confirms that the president did not sign the application, but the affiant states that he authorized a notary public by telephone to sign his name. Plaintiff also submitted a letter from the state licensing authority which recited that the state's concern was with the truthfulness of the answers contained in any application and that "we have allowed the signature of the applicant or his agent so long as such signature is with the knowledge or permission of the applicant-owner."
Following the hearing, the council revoked plaintiff's license on the basis that the president's signature was a forgery, and that the renewal application was not properly verified. See § 12-47-135(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 5). On appeal to the district court, Glendale conceded that the signature was not a forgery because the president had authorized the notary to sign the application with his name. However, the court affirmed the revocation on the basis of the City's single contention that plaintiff failed to file an application that was properly verified.
[1] The requirement that the contents of a liquor license application be verified is mandatory. Spero v. Board of Trustees, 35 Colo. App. 64, 529 P.2d 327 (1974). However, the application may be amended prior to or at a hearing to review the application in order to correct or add information thereto. See, e.g., Goehring v. Board of County Commissioners, 172 Colo. 1, 469 P.2d 137 (1970); Spero v. Board of Trustees, supra. It necessarily follows that a proper verification for the application can be supplied prior to or at the hearing on the application. See Board of County Commissioners v. National Tea Co., 149 Colo. 80, 367 P.2d 909 (1962). The affidavit supplies the necessary verification in this case.
And, contrary to the City's contention, we hold that failure to verify properly the application prior to the expiration date for filing a renewal application is not fatal. This is because a hearing on the application may be and, in fact, was held after the filing period had expired, see § 12-47-106(1)(b).
The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment setting aside Glendale's order of revocation.
JUDGE PIERCE and JUDGE SMITH concur.