Don Niemeyer, Jon Niemeyer, Brent Hegerfeld, Stanley Hegerfeld, Hoagland Holdings, LLC v. The Board of Trustees of Allen County Regional Water & Sewer District (mem. dec.)
02A03-1608-MI-1914
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 17, 2017Background
- Appellants are property owners/ratepayers in the Hoagland Sewer Service Area of the Allen County Regional Water & Sewer District; District adopted a sewer-rate ordinance in January 2016 after a public hearing.
- The District complied with notice requirements of Ind. Code § 13-26-11-15 by notifying ratepayers that increases might exceed 5% and advising of appeal rights.
- Ratepayers (Appellants) petitioned under § 15(d); the district authority (Allen County Commissioners) sustained the ordinance after a hearing.
- Appellants appealed the district authority’s ruling to the Allen Circuit Court under § 15(h), challenging (1) procedural compliance and (2) whether the new rates were “just and equitable” under § 9.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board, finding procedure was followed and Appellants submitted no evidence that rates were not just and equitable; Appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board followed statutory procedure in adopting the ordinance | Procedures required by § 15 were not properly followed | Board followed required procedure and notice provisions | Court: Board followed procedure; no genuine issue of fact |
| Whether the increased rates are "just and equitable" under § 9 | Rate increases are unjust given Hoagland’s self‑sufficient infrastructure and asserted lack of statutory/regulatory mandate for uniform-rate transition | Rates meet § 9 standards to produce sufficient revenue; District relied on SRF financing concerns and need to reduce rate disparities | Court: Appellants offered no evidence contradicting that rates were just and equitable; summary judgment for Board |
| Whether Plaintiffs could pursue a declaratory judgment claim instead of § 15 appeal | Plaintiffs later argued complaint also sought declaratory relief under Ind. Code § 34‑14‑1‑2 | Complaint was pled under § 15; declaratory theory not raised below | Court: Declaratory judgment theory not raised at trial court; cannot be advanced for first time on appeal |
| Whether amended § 9(a) (adding ratepayer interest) applies retroactively | Argue amended standard should apply | Trial court: events occurred before amendment; amendment not applied retroactively | Court: Trial court correctly declined retroactive application; Appellants do not appeal this ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- McCarty v. Sanders, 805 N.E.2d 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Shelton v. Kroger Ltd. P’ship I, 58 N.E.3d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Hanna v. Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 963 N.E.2d 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court findings helpful but not binding on appeal)
- Bradshaw v. Chandler, 916 N.E.2d 163 (Ind. 2009) (appellant bears burden to show trial court error)
- Master Copy & Reprod. Ctr., Inc. v. Copyrite, Inc., 750 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (issues not raised below cannot be advanced on appeal)
- Yankee Park Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. LaGrange Cty. Sewer Dist., 891 N.E.2d 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (example of challenging sewer-district ordinance via declaratory judgment)