Scott v. Universal Utils., Inc.
2017 Ohio 4341
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (initially three, later only Jill Smith) sued Universal Utilities, Friendly Village LP, Meadows of Perrysburg LLC, and Choice Properties alleging overbilling for water/sewer and seeking class certification.
- Mobile home parks had a single District main meter; each lot had a Sensus SRII meter; Choice Properties paid the District and Universal billed residents per 100 cubic feet increments.
- Plaintiff claimed leases required billing for actual usage and alleged systematic overcharging, relying on meter work orders, billing patterns, and an expert (Michael Plunkett).
- Defendants produced billing records, affidavits (bookkeeper and manager), and argued no surcharge was added, meters measured accurately, issues were transmitter-related, and Choice Properties sometimes absorbed losses.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied class certification, finding plaintiff had no factual basis showing she or class members were overcharged; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff was billed for actual water usage as required by lease | Smith: bills rounded to 100th cubic foot and billing patterns plus work orders show inaccurate/illegal billing | Defendants: industry-standard billing by 100 cubic feet only after full use; meters tested accurate; transmitter issues do not prove overbilling | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; Smith failed to prove overbilling or meter inaccuracy; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether expert affidavit created triable issue of fact | Smith: Plunkett shows billing anomalies, many work orders, and asserts meters/ billing produced false bills | Defendants: Plunkett admitted Smith’s meter measured within specs; evidence shows if anything underbilling; plaintiff bears burden to prove overcharge | Court: Plunkett did not create dispute over material fact; his testing supported meter accuracy; plaintiff failed to meet burden |
| Whether class certification under Civ.R. 23 was appropriate | Smith: Common question—did defendants charge more than law permits; class-wide standardized billing practices allow damages calculation | Defendants: Individual issues predominate; representative lacked factual basis and alleged new claims not pleaded | Court: Denial affirmed—representative incompetent, no demonstrated common proof of overcharge |
| Whether plaintiff met burden to survive summary judgment | Smith: Relies on testimony, work orders, Plunkett’s observations to rebut defendants’ records | Defendants: Submitted detailed billing records, affidavits, and demonstrated absence of surcharge or billing scheme | Court: Plaintiff provided no specific facts showing a genuine issue; burden rests on plaintiff; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (apellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Brown v. County Commrs., 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (1993) (standard for appellate de novo review and summary judgment principles)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (summary judgment standard; construing evidence most favorably to nonmoving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment must initially support motion; nonmovant must then set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue)