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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT