Quantcast

Matoesian to decide City of Alton's motion to dismiss 'erroneous' trash billing class action

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Matoesian to decide City of Alton's motion to dismiss 'erroneous' trash billing class action

In spite of having cashed a check for $923.73 over erroneous garbage service billing, a plaintiff pursuing a class action against the City of Alton "apparently" is not satisfied.

In a suit filed last December, Christopher Durr claims the city illegally charged a refuse fee for trash collection, even though businesses being assessed the fee were required to arrange and pay for their own garbage pick-up. The refuse fee was tacked on to water bills issued by Illinois American Water - a company the city hires to handle billing for water and trash services.

Durr is represented by G. Edward Moorman of Alton. In a motion for class certification, Durr seeks to lead others who also were billed erroneously from Jan. 1, 2007 through Dec. 31, 2012. Those affected exceeds 50, "and is thus so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable," Moorman stated.

The City, represented by James E. Schrempf of Alton, says that Durr complained about the charges on Jan. 23, 2013, and that the City investigated and determined that he had in fact been erroneously charged for a five year period. The City prepared a check for full refund of trash services erroneously billed to the account holder at 114 West Third St. - Malcom Durr. A check was mailed to Christopher Durr on Feb. 12, 2013, which was cashed or deposited "soon thereafter," according to Schrempf.

"The City of Alton quickly acknowledged the mistake and paid to the Plaintiff all of the monies erroneously paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to the apparent satisfaction of the Plaintiff at the time," he wrote in a motion to dismiss.

In response to the City's motion to dismiss, Moorman wrote that his client does not deny receiving a check from the city, "but there is no evidence of the existence of any written release or satisfaction, nor does defendant cite facts beyond the issuance of the check to show that it was or was intended to be a release of satisfaction.

"The so-called 'apparent satisfaction' cited by the defendant does not satisfy..."

Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian presides.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 13-L-2017.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News