Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 02A03-1608-MI-1914
03-17-2017
Don Niemeyer, Jon Niemeyer, Brent Hegerfeld, Stanley Hegerfeld, Hoagland Holdings, LLC, Hoagland Holdings II, LLC, Premier Glass, Inc., and Hawk's Nest Ridge Development Corp., Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. The Board of Trustees of Allen County Regional Water & Sewer District, Appellee-Defendant
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Jeffrey P. Smith David K. Hawk Hawk Haynie Kammeyer & Smith LLP Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert W. Ehrenman Vincent J. Heiny Haller & Colvin, P.C. Fort Wayne, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Jeffrey P. Smith
David K. Hawk
Hawk Haynie Kammeyer & Smith LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Robert W. Ehrenman
Vincent J. Heiny
Haller & Colvin, P.C.
Fort Wayne, Indiana Appeal from the Allen Circuit Court The Honorable Thomas J. Felts, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02C01-1604-MI-416 Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Don Niemeyer, Jon Niemeyer, Brent Hegerfeld, Stanley Hegerfeld, Hoagland Holdings, LLC, Hoagland Holdings II, LLC, Premier Glass, Inc., and Hawk's Nest Ridge Development Corp. (collectively "Appellants") appeal the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees of Allen County Regional Water & Sewer District following Appellants' challenge to a sewer rate ordinance under Indiana Code Section 13-26-11-15 ("Section 15"). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The relevant facts are undisputed. Appellants own property in the Hoagland Sewer Service Area, one of approximately forty service areas within the District, and receive sewer service from the District. In January 2016, after a public hearing, the Board adopted an ordinance modifying sewer rates and charges for the District. Pursuant to Section 15(c), the District mailed its ratepayers a notice stating that the ordinance may increase their rates and charges greater than five percent per year and informing them of their rights under Section 15. Pursuant to Section 15(d), ratepayers filed a petition objecting to the new rates and charges. After a public hearing, the district authority, the Allen County Commissioners, sustained the ordinance pursuant to Section 15(g). In April 2016, pursuant to Section 15(h), Appellants appealed the ruling to the trial court by filing a complaint against the Board. The Board filed a motion for summary judgment, and Appellants filed a response. After a hearing, the trial court issued a final order granting the Board's motion in pertinent part. This appeal followed.
The complaint erroneously states that the appeal was brought pursuant to Section 15(g), rather than Section 15(h). Appellants' App. at 24.
Discussion and Decision
[3] "The purpose of summary judgment is to end litigation when no issue of material fact exists and when the case may be determined as a matter of law." McCarty v. Sanders, 805 N.E.2d 894, 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. "The burden is on the movant to negate the existence of any genuine issue of material fact, and all doubts must be resolved against the movant." Id. at 897-98. "It is only after the movant makes a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact that the burden shifts to the nonmovant to set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 898. Where the material facts are undisputed, our task on appeal is to determine whether the trial court properly applied the law to the facts. Id. Such issues are reviewed de novo, as are questions of statutory interpretation. Shelton v. Kroger Ltd. P'ship I, 58 N.E.3d 229, 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. A trial court's findings and conclusions are helpful and offer insight into its rationale, but they are not binding on this Court. Hanna v. Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., 963 N.E.2d 72, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. 4 The losing party has the burden of persuading us that the trial court erred. Bradshaw v. Chandler, 916 N.E.2d 163, 166 (Ind. 2009). [4] As mentioned above, Appellants appealed the district authority's ruling sustaining the ordinance pursuant to Section 15(h), which at the time of the appeal read in pertinent part as follows: The order of the district authority may be appealed by the district or a petitioner to the circuit court of the county in which the district is located. The court shall try the appeal without a jury and shall determine one (1) or both of the following: (1) Whether the board of trustees of the district, in adopting the ordinance increasing sewer rates and charges, followed the procedure required by this chapter. (2) Whether the increased sewer rates and charges established by the board by ordinance are just and equitable rates and charges, according to the standards set forth in [S]ection 9 of this chapter. 5 Thus, in Section 15(h), the legislature limited the scope of an appeal to the two foregoing issues. When the Board adopted the ordinance in January 2016, Section 9 read as follows: (a) Just and equitable rates and charges are those that produce sufficient revenue to: (1) pay all expenses incident to the operation of the works, including maintenance cost, operating charges, upkeep, repairs, and interest charges on bonds or other obligations; (2) provide the sinking fund for the liquidation of bonds or other evidence of indebtedness and reserves against default in the payment of interest and principal of bonds; and (3) provide adequate money to be used as working capital, as well as money for making improvements, additions, extensions, and replacements. (b) Rates and charges too low to meet the financial requirements described in subsection (a) are unlawful. The initial rates and 6 charges established after notice and hearing under this article are prima facie just and equitable. [5] With respect to Section 15(h), the trial court found (1) that the Board had followed the required procedure in adopting the ordinance and (2) that Appellants had submitted no evidence that the increased rates and charges were not just and equitable as defined in Section 9. Appellants have failed to persuade us otherwise, and therefore we affirm. [6] Affirmed. Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.