ILNews

COA rules in favor of town on breach of contract claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed partial summary judgment to a city that collected a lower monthly bill rate than what was required for wastewater treatment from a town for 15 years and then sued to recover more than $500,000 it believed was owed to it. The city never informed the town the sewage treatment rate increased or that it was embroiled in a lawsuit over the matter.

The City of Lake Station and the Town of New Chicago entered into an intermunicipal agreement for the construction of an interceptor sewer system. Their wastewater was sent for treatment at the Gary Sanitary District. Lake Station billed New Chicago at the monthly rate set by GSD. Several years after this agreement was entered, the GSD tripled its rate. Lake Station protested, didn’t pay the increase, and never told New Chicago about the increase. New Chicago continued to pay the original rate until Lake Station filed a lawsuit to collect more than $500,000 following a judgment entered against Lake Station. The GSD sued Lake Station and won a judgment of more than $5.3 million against the city. Again, Lake Station didn’t inform New Chicago of the lawsuit.

The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Lake Station as to New Chicago’s liability and denied New Chicago’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court cited the Clean Water Act, which the two parties were subject to, as a reason for ruling in favor of Lake Station.

There is no private right of action under the CWA, ruled the Court of Appeals on interlocutory appeal in Town of New Chicago v. City of Lake Station, et al., No. 45A03-1001-PL-22. Lake Station cannot enforce the CWA because only the Environmental Protection Agency administrator can do so. As such, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Lake Station based solely on the CWA, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.  

In examining Lake Station’s claim for breach of contract, the judges held laches isn’t available to New Chicago as a defense for the breach of contract claim, and it examined New Chicago’s equitable estoppel defense. They found New Chicago met the three elements of equitable estoppel. The town lacked the knowledge or the means of knowledge regarding the rate increase and litigation because there’s no issue of material fact that Lake Station didn’t notify New Chicago of the rate increase, that it refused to pay the increased rate, and that it continued to pay the old rate for more than 15 years.

New Chicago showed its reliance upon the conduct of Lake Station, the second element of equitable estoppel. It also showed the third element - that Lake Station’s conduct caused New Chicago to prejudicially change its position. If New Chicago was aware of the rate increases earlier, it could have taken measures to protect itself and its sewage customers, wrote Judge Vaidik.

It’s also true that in general, government entities aren’t subject to estoppel, but in certain situations application is appropriate, as was the case in Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Twp. Plan Commission, 758 N.E.2d 34, 39 (Ind. 2001).  

“Lake Station had a duty to bill New Chicago at the GSD rate (and not at a rate which it thought it should pay). Because Lake Station remained silent from 1989 to 2005, New Chicago reasonably believed that it was paying its proportionate share of the treatment charges at the proper GSD rate and the interceptor costs,” she wrote. “Like the Plan Commission in Equicor, Lake Station had ample opportunity (fifteen years in fact) to notify New Chicago of the increased rate. Yet Lake Station remained silent. Application of estoppel against Lake Station, a government entity, is appropriate in this case. Lake Station is thus estopped from collecting New Chicago’s proportionate share of the treatment charges and interceptor costs from 1990 to 2004.”

The judges reversed and remanded for summary judgment to be entered in favor of New Chicago on its equitable estoppel defense.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT