ILNews

Judges reverse judgment in favor of town in water agreement dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court erred as a matter of law in its interpretation of a disputed section of a water agreement between a real estate developer and the town of Huntertown; as such, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed partial summary judgment in favor of the town.

Carroll Creek and Huntertown entered into a water agreement in October 2000 in which Carroll Creek would pay for constructing a water main that connects to Huntertown’s water service facility. Carroll Creek could recoup nearly $465,000 of its costs via a water connection charge from certain owners of real estate who connected to the water main.

Those charges led to this lawsuit and appeal, Carroll Creek Development Company, Inc. v. Town of Huntertown, Indiana, 02A03-1307-PL-282. At issue is Section 4.1 of the agreement. The water main will serve real estate in a defined “excess area.” The section states: “In the event any present or future owners of real estate within the excess areas shall, at any time within fifteen (15) years after the date of this Agreement, desire to connect into the Water Main, whether by direct tap or through the extension or connection of lateral lines to service the real estate situated in the excess area or adjacent to the excess area, to the extent permitted by law, … .”

Carroll Creek and Huntertown couldn’t agree whether this section required people who lived in the Ravenswood subdivision and another subdivision on the Ruth Nobis farm to pay the connection charge. Huntertown argued that those homeowners do not have to pay because they are not included in the “excess area” as defined in the water agreement. Carroll Creek’s interpretation of Section 4.1 was that the owners of real estate in the excess area who connected to the water main would be subject to the area connection charge when they used their water main connection to service real estate that was in either the excess area or area adjacent to the excess area. The company argued Huntertown failed to prove that the property owners in question had never owned property in the excess area.

The trial court granted summary judgment to Huntertown on the issue. The judge concluded that the “whether by” clause in Section 4.1 was intended to clarify that the excess area owners will be subject to area connection charges even if they do not connect to the water main directly. But this interpretation changes the “to service real estate situated in the excess area or adjacent to the excess area” language to “that service the real estate …,” the judges noted. In doing so, the court disregarded the plain language of the water agreement.

“The plain language in Section 4.1 of the Water Agreement provides that owners of real estate in the excess area are subject to the area connection charge if they connect, directly or indirectly, to the water main 'to service the real estate situated in the excess area or adjacent to the excess area[.]' Thus, the language of Section 4.1, agreed upon by the parties, shows that the intent of the parties was that the area connection charge would be assessed against excess area owners in two specified situations,” Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote.

The appeals court remanded for further proceedings.
 

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. Thanks for this article. We live in Evansville, IN and are aware of how bad the child abuse is here. Can you please send us the statistics for here in Vanderburgh, County. Our web site is: www.ritualabusefree.org Thanks again

  2. This ruling has no application to Indiana. The tail end of the article is misleading where it states criminal penalties await those who refuse a test. This is false. An administrative license suspension is what awaits you. No more, no less.

  3. Yellow journalism much??? "The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by this fall's presidential election, a campaign in which immigration already has played an outsized role." OUTSIZED? by whose standards? Also this: "In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help immigrants a friendlier reception." Ah, also, did you forget an adjective at the *** marks ahead by any chance? Thinking of one that rhymes with bald eagle? " In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help *** immigrants a friendlier reception."

  4. Definition of furnish. : to provide (a room or building) with furniture. : to supply or give (something) to someone or something. : to supply or give to (someone) something that is needed or wanted. Judge Kincaid: if furnish means provide, and the constitution says the provider in a uni is the township, how on earth are they seperated??

  5. I never filed a law suite. I had no money for a lawyer. In 2010 I presented for MRI/with contrast. The technician stuck my left arm three times with needle to inject dye. I was w/out O2 for two minutes, not breathing, no ambulance was called. I suffered an Embolism ,Myocardia infarction. Permanent memory loss, heart damage. After the event, I could not remember what I did five seconds earlier. I had no-one to help me. I lost my dental hygiene career, been homeless, etc.

ADVERTISEMENT