ILNews

SCOTUS takes Indianapolis sewer payment case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in a case that questions whether the city of Indianapolis violated the federal Constitution in how it handled refunds for residents who paid assessments on local sewer projects.

In an order list released Monday, the SCOTUS took Christine Armour, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, et al., No. 11-161, which led to a divided Indiana Supreme Court decision in May.

The case involves 45 homeowners in an Indianapolis subdivision who sued the city when they didn’t receive refunds of sewer assessments they paid. The assessments were part of a sanitary sewer project funded under the Barrett Law, Indiana Code 36-9-39, and the homeowners were able to either pay the full amount or make partial payments each month. The city later switched its funding procedures for the projects and those who’d been paying monthly installments were no longer responsible for anything that had been unpaid. Homeowners who paid the nearly $10,000 assessments in one lump sum prior to Nov. 1, 2005, were denied any refund.

In a 3-2 decision by the Indiana Supreme Court, the majority reversed the trial court judgment against Indianapolis – which held the city violated the Equal Protection Clause – and found no constitutional violation under the 14th Amendment had occurred. Justice Frank Sullivan wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Steven David, while Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson dissented.

The majority found that the city’s rationale was that low- and middle-class families were more likely to have been paying gradually and those who paid in full up front were likely higher income, meaning the rationale was reasonable and coincided with the government’s interest in moving away from the Barrett Law system because of the financial burdens it created. Justices Rucker and Dickson disagreed, finding the city’s “rational basis” wasn’t sufficient and was used as more a blanket reason without any practical justification of the rationale actually doing what it claimed to do.

The SCOTUS 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.

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. How do you go about each day with out having resentment or ill will towards the evil that has done this to you? Is it your faith that keeps you going and knowing that someday they will have to answer to God? At church our pastor talked about forgiveness and how Jesus forgave our sins and we should too. Its very hard knowing that we do the right thing in this world, and those that are liars, thieves, are continued in power and continue on doing their jobs, while you are banished from something that you have every right to do with out being penalized.

  2. From my post below .... I cut and pasted in error: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468

  3. Your prayers must account for some of the wind beneath my wings. That and this: His yoke is easy, His burden light. OK, now to bring this comment thread 100% back to the topic at hand. From my secret files, never before published, a letter that Commission head Myra Selby deemed interesting, but ..... This Hail Mary was ignored by the Commission, and then cited by the Indiana bar examiners to justify the need for a lifetime banishment from the Indiana Supreme Court. I tender it as a study in anti white male anti Christian antipathy in the Indiana court system. Focused upon the Race (ie not white) and Gender (ie not male) and not religious Commission for "fairness." Uncle Karl, eat your heart out: https://www.scribd.com/document/340472424/Race-gender-request-24128-1 ... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BznfHUztK5eTUGlxbmRvMWJsaHhLcGFuaE5KNHZWVjk3eHRn/view?usp=sharing

  4. What a disgrace of Judicial Proceedings. Can complain and write comments forever but someone needs to show the mother how to fight back before he turns this little girl against her.

  5. The truth comes out Issac Law Firm for Men helped Montgomery to get custody.Should read the lies he told them.How much was paid to the judges?

ADVERTISEMENT