Daniel Hoagland v. Town of Clear Lake (mem. dec.)
76A04-1603-SC-574
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 15, 2017Background
- The Hoagland Family Limited Partnership (HFLP) owns three properties in the Town of Clear Lake; two properties are at issue (804 S. Clear Lake Dr. and 1114 S. Clear Lake Dr.).
- The Town charges an annual $135 trash-collection fee by ordinance and authorizes the clerk-treasurer to bill and collect from "each owner." Unpaid fees may be recovered in civil action with penalty and attorney fees.
- Historically Daniel Hoagland personally paid the trash invoices (sometimes from HFLP accounts and sometimes personal). He did not pay the 2015 invoices and sought waiver after a contractor damaged a tree in 2014; the Town refused.
- The Town sued Hoagland in small claims for $297 (two properties plus 10% penalty). Hoagland argued he was not an owner and not a real party in interest; he also asserted conditional payment based on the Town compensating for the tree damage.
- The small claims court found the properties were within Town limits, that titles were in HFLP’s name, and that Hoagland had made a conditional offer to pay which the Town rejected; it concluded Hoagland was not personally liable and entered judgment for Hoagland.
- On appeal the Town cross-appealed the liability ruling; the appellate court affirmed the jurisdictional/location finding, reversed the non-liability holding, and remanded for judgment in favor of the Town for unpaid 2015 charges (with interest). Appellate fees were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Town) | Defendant's Argument (Hoagland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction / finding of property location | Town presented clerk-treasurer testimony that properties lie within Town; court had jurisdiction | Hoagland claimed finding lacked evidence and could harm separate sewer litigation | Affirmed: sufficient evidence supported finding properties are within Town; court had jurisdiction |
| Whether Hoagland personally liable for HFLP properties' trash fees under ordinance | Town: prior payments by Hoagland and ordinance language permit recovery from a "user or owner"; Hoagland acted as a user | Hoagland: titles are in HFLP; not owner; no personal obligation to pay; conditional offer to pay was rejected so no implied obligation | Reversed: Hoagland is a "user" under the ordinance and personally liable for trash charges for the two properties; remanded to enter judgment for Town |
| Whether intermingled prior payments create contractual/open-account liability | Town: prior personal payments show established obligation to pay | Hoagland: payments do not make him personally liable absent ownership | Not addressed substantively: appellate court declined to resolve on that theory due to inadequate briefing; relied on ordinance construction instead |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded | Town: Hoagland's appeal and motion to dismiss cross-appeal were frivolous and aimed to harass | Hoagland: appeal was reasonable given potential impact on separate sewer litigation | Denied: appellate damages not warranted; appeal unwise but not vexatious given context |
Key Cases Cited
- Nehl Beverage Co. of Indianapolis v. Petri, 537 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (party cannot obtain review of a favorable judgment unless aggrieved)
- Hughes v. State, 473 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (same principle regarding inability to appeal a favorable judgment)
- Brumley v. Commonwealth Bus. Coll. Educ. Corp., 945 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (reiterating that a party cannot appeal a judgment favorable to it)
- Zoller v. Zoller, 858 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (issues are waived if not supported by cogent argument and authority)
- Kaser v. Barker, 811 N.E.2d 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (rules of statutory construction apply to municipal ordinances)
- City of Jeffersonville v. Hallmark at Jeffersonville, L.P., 937 N.E.2d 402 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (intent of drafters is discerned from plain statutory language)
- Lucas Outdoor Advertising, LLC v. City of Crawfordsville, 840 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (interpret ordinance as a whole and give words their ordinary meaning)
- Kalwitz v. Kalwitz, 934 N.E.2d 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate courts should exercise restraint before awarding frivolous-appeal damages)