ILNews

City violated constitution in denying refunds

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The city of Indianapolis' refusal to grant some homeowners' requests for a partial refund of Barrett Law assessments violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In The City of Indianapolis, et al. v. Christine Armour, et al., No. 49A02-0901-CV-84, 45 homeowners in an Indianapolis subdivision sued the city seeking a refund of sewer assessments they had paid in full roughly equivalent to the amount the city's Board of Public Works voted to forgive for neighbors who were making installment payments.

The residents in the neighborhood were told their properties would be part of a sanitary sewer project funded under the Barrett Law, Indiana Code Chapter 36-9-39. The homeowners in the instant suit paid their nearly $10,000 in assessments in one lump sum. The rest of the neighborhood chose monthly installment payments. A year later, the city switched to funding sewer projects under the Septic Tank Elimination Program. As a result of this switch, the city declared any unpaid money under the Barrett Program as of Nov. 1, 2005, would be forgiven. The homeowners in the complaint had paid their assessments in full prior to this date, and the city denied refunding some of the money.

These homeowners sued for refunds, declaratory relief, or a writ of mandamus, alleging the city's decision to not refund the money violated the Equal Protection Clause. The trial court agreed and entered judgment against Indianapolis for $380,914.

The U.S. Supreme Court hasn't specifically addressed whether a municipality contravenes the Equal Protection Clause when it forgives an outstanding assessment owed by some property owners while, at the same time, it refuses to refund an equivalent amount to similarly situated property owners who have already paid the same assessment in full. But relying on Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission of Webster Co., West Virginia, 488 U.S. 336 (1989), and Supreme Court rulings from several other states, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling.

The appellate judges rejected the city's arguments that the homeowners aren't similarly situated to those other owners who hadn't paid in full their assessments by Nov. 1, 2005, because the city's argument wasn't supported by legal authority, nor did it address the proper legal standard, wrote Judge Edward Najam. The city failed to show the property owners who chose to pay in installments are any different in income class than the homeowners who paid in a single lump sum.

The city's reasoning for rejecting the refunds failed to take into account the particular facts of the homeowners' cases, where they had paid from 10 to 30 times more that their similarly situated neighbors, the judge continued. The city failed to demonstrate a rational basis for the different treatment and instead offered attenuated justifications for its failure to treat the similarly situated homeowners with rough equality.

"The City cannot lawfully confer privileges upon those property owners who chose to pay their Barrett Law assessments in installments and, at the same time, impose liabilities upon those property owners within the same class who, at the City's invitation, paid their assessments in full," Judge Najam wrote.

The appellate court also rejected the city's attempt to satisfy its burden with an affidavit the chairperson of the board prepared for litigation two years later in response to the homeowners' showing of disparate treatment.

The city is required by the U.S. Constitution to refund the homeowners an amount that will place them on equal footing with their similarly situated neighbors who benefited from the city's disparate treatment, the appellate court concluded. The judges remanded with instructions to determine the appropriate amount of prejudgment interest for each homeowner.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT