Terry and Laura Wagler, Larry and Jennifer Wagler, Norman Wagler, and Janet and Nathan Wagler v. West Boggs Sewer District Inc.
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 585
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- West Boggs, a not-for-profit sewer utility, sought to require Amish property owners to connect to its sewer system under I.C. § 8-1-2-125(d).
- Notices by certified mail were sent in 2008–2009 informing Norman, Janet, Nathan, and others to connect within specified deadlines.
- Agreed Entry judgments were entered in January–March 2011 requiring Waglers to connect and outline steps, with counsel signing on their behalf.
- In 2011 the Waglers filed Rule 60(B) motions to set aside the judgments on religious/constitutional grounds and later asserted related defenses.
- The trial court denied the 60(B) motions, held that 60(B)(8) cannot modify an agreed judgment, and denied fee-shifting requests.
- Janet & Nathan were found to be required to connect after an August 2011 bench trial, with a September 2011 order detailing timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court abused its discretion denying Rule 60(B) motions | Waglers argue exceptional circumstances justify relief due to religious beliefs. | West Boggs contends agreed judgments cannot be modified under 60(B)(8); no exceptional circumstances shown. | No abuse; 60(B)(8) does not warrant setting aside agreed judgments. |
| Whether Janet & Nathan must connect to the Sewer System | Statute empowers utility discretion but requires compliance when 300 ft and 90-day notice; court properly ordered connection. | Possession of discretion lies with utility; no mandatory obligation created by notice language. | Court did not err; Janet & Nathan must connect given notice and proximity. |
| Award of attorney fees and costs to West Boggs on Rule 60(B) motions | Motions were frivolous and vexatious; fees appropriate under §34-52-1-1. | Waglers’ defenses were not frivolous; not bad faith; no basis to award fees. | Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying fee awards; no appellate fee against Waglers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Evans, 946 N.E.2d 1200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (TR 60(B) cannot modify an agreed judgment)
- In re Paternity of T.G.T., 803 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (TR 60(B)(8) relief when statutory scheme violated)
- Summit Account & Computer Serv. v. Hogge, 608 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (TR 60(B) considerations and relief timing)
- Ryan v. Ryan, 972 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. 2012) (contract-like agreements; modification only by consent or fraud/duress)