ILNews

Supreme Court splits on Barrett Law sewer payment case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that the City of Indianapolis didn’t violate the constitution by refusing to grant some homeowners’ refund requests for sewer project assessments they’d paid in full when other homeowners who’d made partial installment payments had the remaining balance of assessments owed discharged.

The 3-2 ruling came today in the case of City of Indianapolis, et al. v. Christine Armour, et al., No. 49A02-0901-CV-84, in which 45 homeowners in an Indianapolis subdivision sued the city for not receiving refunds of sewer assessments they’d paid. The assessments were part of a sanitary sewer project funded under the Barrett Law, Indiana Code Chapter 36-9-39, and the homeowners were able to either pay the full amount or make partial payments each month. But when the city switched to funding these projects under the Septic Tank Elimination Program, those who’d been paying monthly installments were no longer responsible for anything that had been unpaid. Homeowners who’d paid the nearly $10,000 assessments in one lump sum prior to Nov. 1, 2005, were denied any refund on any portion, equivalent to what the other neighbors had discharged by the city.

Those 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 Indiana Court of Appeals in 2009 affirmed that judgment and found the city didn’t have a rational basis for granting relief to those who’d been paying gradually but not for those who had paid in full up front. The only way to resolve the constitutional Equal Protection Clause violation, according to the intermediate appellate court, was to issue refunds to the plaintiffs.

But the state Supreme Court disagreed, with a three-justice majority reversing the trial court decision and finding no constitutional violation 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.

“We hold that Resolution 101 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it rationally related to legitimate government interests,” Justice Sullivan wrote.

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 it was reasonable that it would coincide with the government’s interest in moving away from the Barrett Law system because of the financial burdens it created. But overall, the majority cited a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1981 in determining that it doesn’t matter under the rational basis review what the actual facts might show about that financial hardship if the issue might be debatable before the governmental decision-maker. That is why the Court of Appeals erred in requiring actual proof of the financial hardship statuses of those who had their assessments discharged, the majority wrote.

The majority justices also pointed out that the decision to not refund money to those who’d paid in full was another legitimate government interest – preservation of limited resources in not emptying its coffers.

“It is true that those whose assessments were discharged also received a sewer and did so at a lower price,” Justice Sullivan wrote. “But the Equal Protection Clause does not require substantive equality among taxpayers if there is a rational basis for differing treatment, and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.”

But 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 it actually doing what it claimed to do.

“However, merely declaring that Barrett Law funding ‘imposed financial hardships on middle- and low-income property owners who were often most in need of sanitary sewers due to failing septic systems,’ does nothing to explain why the City treated differently residents who elected to pay their assessments in a lump sum versus those who elected to pay in installments,” Justice Rucker wrote. “Here, there is no indication that the Board even believed the classification would further its stated objective. In my view, the disconnect demonstrates that the classification fails to have ‘a fair and substantial relation’ to the statutory objective.”

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.
 

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

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. Bill Satterlee is, indeed, a true jazz aficionado. Part of my legal career was spent as an associate attorney with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso. Bill was instrumental (no pun intended) in introducing me to jazz music, thereby fostering my love for this genre. We would, occasionally, travel to Chicago on weekends and sit in on some outstanding jazz sessions at Andy's on Hubbard Street. Had it not been for Bill's love of jazz music, I never would have had the good fortune of hearing it played live at Andy's. And, most likely, I might never have begun listening to it as much as I do. Thanks, Bill.

  2. The child support award is many times what the custodial parent earns, and exceeds the actual costs of providing for the children's needs. My fiance and I have agreed that if we divorce, that the children will be provided for using a shared checking account like this one(http://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) to avoid the hidden alimony in Indiana's child support guidelines.

  3. Fiat justitia ruat caelum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall." The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.

  4. Indiana up holds this behavior. the state police know they got it made.

  5. Additional Points: -Civility in the profession: Treating others with respect will not only move others to respect you, it will show a shared respect for the legal system we are all sworn to protect. When attorneys engage in unnecessary personal attacks, they lose the respect and favor of judges, jurors, the person being attacked, and others witnessing or reading the communication. It's not always easy to put anger aside, but if you don't, you will lose respect, credibility, cases, clients & jobs or job opportunities. -Read Rule 22 of the Admission & Discipline Rules. Capture that spirit and apply those principles in your daily work. -Strive to represent clients in a manner that communicates the importance you place on the legal matter you're privileged to handle for them. -There are good lawyers of all ages, but no one is perfect. Older lawyers can learn valuable skills from younger lawyers who tend to be more adept with new technologies that can improve work quality and speed. Older lawyers have already tackled more legal issues and worked through more of the problems encountered when representing clients on various types of legal matters. If there's mutual respect and a willingness to learn from each other, it will help make both attorneys better lawyers. -Erosion of the public trust in lawyers wears down public confidence in the rule of law. Always keep your duty to the profession in mind. -You can learn so much by asking questions & actively listening to instructions and advice from more experienced attorneys, regardless of how many years or decades you've each practiced law. Don't miss out on that chance.

ADVERTISEMENT