ILNews

First impression in utility fee case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to determine whether the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission properly reviewed the rates and fees charged by a regional sewage district at the request of a campground owner.

LaGrange County Regional Utility District v. Jerry and Sandy Bubb, owners of Gordon's Campground, No. 93A02-0905-EX-442, was the first time a campground owner utilized a 2005 statute that let an owner request the IURC review the fees charged by certain regional utility districts, including regional sewage districts.

Indiana Code Section 13-26-11-2.1 also provides when a request is made, the IURC's appeals division (CAD) will conduct an informal review, including a "prompt and thorough investigation of the dispute."

The Bubbs sent a letter to the IURC in March 2006 asking for a review of rates charged by LaGrange County Regional Utility District. In April, the CAD director informed LaGrange's attorney she would be handling the review and the process would be governed by 170 Administrative Code 8.5-2-5 (the rule). Nearly a year later, the CAD director sent a letter to LaGrange saying it received the complaint from the Bubbs and would conduct an informal review pursuant to statute. LaGrange filed a motion to dismiss in April 2007 because it believed the IURC no longer had jurisdiction over the dispute because it didn't complete the review in a timely manner as required by statute or the rule. The motion was denied and in November 2008, the CAD determined LaGrange overcharged the Bubbs and the utility was ordered to reimburse them the difference between the appropriate rate and the rate paid from March 2006 until the order.

On appeal, LaGrange again argued IURC lost jurisdiction because it didn't act in a timely matter pursuant to statute and the rule. The Court of Appeals determined the rule, which specified the timeframe of a review, didn't apply to the IURC because it failed to adopt the rule. Even though the CAD director originally told LaGrange's attorney the rule would apply, the IURC isn't estopped from arguing the rule is inapplicable. LaGrange failed to show it detrimentally relied on the director's statement, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

The Court of Appeals also found the CAD review and disposition was conducted in a timely manner pursuant to the statute. Even though the dispute could have been handled more quickly than 32 months after the Bubbs originally filed the complaint, there is no specific timeframe within the statute in which the CAD must investigate a complaint and issue an informal disposition. The statute doesn't also say the IURC loses jurisdiction if the CAD fails to resolve the dispute in a timely manner, wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court relied on Hancock County Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Greenfield, 494 N.E.2d 1294, 1295 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986), because the statutes in either case don't contain language that restrains the IURC from acting if the CAD fails to conduct a prompt investigation, wrote Chief Judge Baker. Also, the statute in the instant case doesn't provide for an adverse consequence or say that the IURC loses jurisdiction if the CAD doesn't conduct a prompt investigation.

If the IURC lost jurisdiction because the CAD failed to complete a timely investigation, that would frustrate the purpose of the statute, he continued. If the IURC was without jurisdiction in the instant case, then the Bubbs would have no recourse to recover the excessive fees.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT