In Clark v. Fitzgerald Water, Light & Bond Commission , 286 Ga. App. 36 648 SE2d 654 2007, the Court of Appeals held that the Fitzgerald Water, Light & Bond Commission, a governmental agency, was an independent legal entity capable of suing Bobby Clark for certain contract damages, despite the fact that it had not expressly been granted the right to sue and be sued when it was created by the Legislature. We granted certiorari to determine whether a governmental agency’s power to sue and be sued may be implied solely from the express grant to the governmental agency of the power to contract. See Cravey v. Southeastern Underwriters , 214 Ga. 450 1 105 SE2d 497 1958; Foskey v. Vidalia City School , 258 Ga. App. 298 574 SE2d 367 2002. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse. The record shows that, on July 28, 1994, Bobby Clark entered into a contract with Fitzgerald Water, an agency and instrumentality of the City of Fitzgerald created to manage the City’s water and electric needs. See Ga. L. 1914, p. 781; Ga. L. 1984, p. 5399. Pursuant to this contract, Fitzgerald Water agreed to install water and sewer lines in a subdivision being developed by Clark for an installation fee. After the work was done, Clark did not pay, and Fitzgerald Water brought suit in its own name. After the trial court determined that Fitzgerald Water had the legal capacity to bring suit, the case went to trial, and a jury awarded Fitzgerald Water approximately $44,000. Clark then appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending once again that Fitzgerald Water, as an artificial person, lacked the legal capacity to sue or be sued because it had not been granted that authority at the time of its creation. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding generally that, because Fitzgerald Water had been given the ability to contract, it implicitly also had the ability to sue in order to enforce the contracts into which it had entered. In support of this determination, the Court of Appeals cited both Cravey , supra, and Foskey , supra.
As a general matter, there are three classes of legal entities with the inherent power to sue and be sued: “1 natural persons; 2 an artificial person a corporation; and 3 such quasi-artificial persons as the law recognizes as being capable to sue.” Citation omitted. Cravey , supra, 214 Ga. at 453 1. An unincorporated association, on the other hand,may not sue or be sued in its own name unless authorized by law. An express statutory provision, however, is not indispensable to an association’s capacity to sue and be sued in the association’s name; such a suit may be maintained by virtue of a necessary implication arising from statutory provisions, as in cases where an unincorporated association is recognized as a legal entity by statutes which do not in terms authorize it to sue or be sued.Id.
