City of Jeffersonville v. Hallmark at Jeffersonville, L.P.
2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 2105
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Hallmark planned three multi-family buildings (two with 24 units, one with 32 units) and paid sewer tap fees based on the City’s 2006-2007 representation of $1,500 per unit, total $120,025.
- Ordinance 63 (as amended) governs sewer tap fees; Section 50.51(C) sets different fees for multi-family units, with a total calculation yielding $15,000 for Hallmark’s three buildings.
- Hallmark later concluded it overpaid; it sought a refund of $105,000 and the Sewer Board denied the claim on September 4, 2007.
- A bench trial in November-December 2009 led the court to find Hallmark should have been charged $15,000 plus a $25 administrative fee, and to reject the voluntary payment doctrine as a bar to recovery.
- The trial court concluded the overpayment resulted from an honest calculation error by a city official and that the voluntary payment doctrine did not apply because Hallmark was compelled to pay to obtain building permits and sewer access.
- The trial court entered judgment for Hallmark for $105,000 plus prejudgment interest; the City appealed arguing the voluntary payment doctrine and ordinance interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly interpreted Ordinance 63 for multi-family fees | Hallmark contends the ordinance requires a $15,000 total fee, not $120,000, and that the court correctly interpreted the statute. | City argues Hallmark could not challenge its interpretation and that the paid amount was correct under the ordinance as invoiced. | Affirmed: court correctly found $15,000 total and supported by the ordinance. |
| Whether Hallmark waived its right to challenge the fee interpretation | Hallmark did not waive its right under Indiana law to seek a refund of an overpayment. | City argues waiver via payment under its interpretation amounted to acceptance of the fee. | Affirmed: no waiver under Ind. Code § 36-9-23-28.5; overpayment not seven years unclaimed. |
| Whether the voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery | Time Warner dictates the doctrine does not bar recovery when a government entity’s service is involved and payment was made under uncertain liability. | City argues the doctrine applies to government entities and that payment was voluntary. | Affirmed: doctrine does not bar recovery here; payment was compelled to obtain services and there was a calculation error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Whiteman, 802 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. 2004) (voluntary payment doctrine not absolute against government service overpayments)
- Wolcott, Chicago, St. L. & P.R. Co. v. Wolcott, 141 Ind. 267, 39 N.E. 451 (Ind. 1895) (overpayments in compelled payments contexts)
- Pattison, Lafayette & I.R. Co. v., 41 Ind. 312 (Ind. 1872) (overcharges as payment under compulsion)
- City of Evansville v. Walker, 318 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. App. 1974) (governmental entity context and statutory authority)
- Farley Neighborhood Ass'n. v. Town of Speedway, 765 N.E.2d 1226 (Ind. 2002) (rates vs. statutory authority in municipal actions)