Mint Management, LLC, and J&MW Holdings, LLC v. City of Richmond, Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 66
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2007 Richmond adopted a stormwater ordinance creating a Stormwater Management District and a Stormwater Service Charge (the “Stormwater Fee”) to finance system operations.
- Section 59.06 stated a fee "shall be imposed on each and every lot and parcel of land within the City which directly or indirectly contributes to the storm water system of the City," assessed to the property owner.
- Mint Management, LLC and J&MW Holdings, LLC (Property Owners) own four Richmond parcels; survey evidence showed their stormwater runoff does not drain into the City’s stormwater system.
- Property Owners sought declaratory relief that they were not required to pay the Fee (and sought refund of past payments). The City moved for summary judgment, arguing the Ordinance (and its enabling statute) intended the Fee to apply to all city property owners because all benefit from the system.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the City; the Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the Ordinance and enabling statute as charging all property owners in the district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Ordinance requires only parcels that "directly or indirectly contribute" stormwater to the City system to pay the Fee | The Fee applies only to parcels whose stormwater drains into or contributes to the City system; Property Owners’ parcels do not, so they owe no Fee | The Ordinance and the enabling statute define "users"/beneficiaries broadly; all property within the district benefits and may be charged the Fee, regardless of physical runoff | The court held the Ordinance, read with the enabling statute and definitions, applies to all property owners in the district, so the Fee applies to the Property Owners |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Yates, 912 N.E.2d 805 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (burden-shifting in summary judgment)
- Rollett Family Farms, LLC v. Area Plan Comm’n of Evansville-Vanderburgh Cty., 994 N.E.2d 734 (statutory/ordinance construction principles)
- ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192 (avoid selective reading that yields disharmonious results)
- West v. Office of Ind. Sec’y of State, 54 N.E.3d 349 (supporting principle against disharmonizing interpretations)