Livingood v. City of Des Moines
| Docket Number | 22-0536 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 2023 |
| Parties | FRANCIS LIVINGOOD, CHRISTOPHER MAURY, and DANIEL ROBBINS, Appellants, v. CITY OF DES MOINES, IOWA, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Submitted February 22, 2023
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of a municipality on challenges to the municipality's use of the state income offset program to collect automated traffic citations not reduced to a legal judgment. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Claire M. Diallo (argued), and James C. Larew of Larew Law Office Iowa City, for appellants.
Michelle Mackel-Wiederanders (argued) and Luke DeSmet Assistant City Attorneys, Des Moines, for appellee.
The court, in which all justices joined. Mansfield, J., filed a concurring opinion.
Several vehicle owners brought this suit to challenge the City of Des Moines' use of the state's income offset program to collect automated traffic citation penalties not reduced to a judgment in a municipal infraction proceeding. In their petition, the vehicle owners contended the city's use of the income offset program: (1) was an unlawful property tax, (2) violated the statute of limitations, (3) amounted to an unconstitutional taking, (4) was preempted by state law, (5) violated their state constitutional right to due process of law, and (6) constituted unjust enrichment. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied the vehicle owners' motion for summary judgment and granted the city's motion for summary judgment. The vehicle owners timely filed this appeal. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the district court.
We begin with an overview of the city's automated traffic enforcement (ATE) program as operated during the time relevant to this case. See Des Moines, Iowa, Mun. Code § 114-243 (2017).[1] Under the program, the city used fixed cameras to enforce certain municipal traffic laws. When a traffic camera detected a violation of the traffic laws, the camera took a photo or video and sent it to GATSO, a third-party vendor hired to administer the ATE program. GATSO ran the license plate information from the photo or video through Nlets, "a network communication center that connects over 55,000 law enforcement and judicial agencies in North America." Once GATSO determined the owner of the vehicle depicted, GATSO sent the information to the Des Moines Police Department for review. A police officer reviewed each photo or video and determined whether a violation should be pursued. If the officer determined a violation should be pursued, GATSO issued a notice of violation to the owner of the vehicle. Id. § 114-243(d)(1).
The notice of violation sent to the vehicle owner included a photo of the alleged violation, the name and badge number of the police officer who reviewed the information, the amount of the civil penalty, and a website where the vehicle owner could review a recording of the violation and pay the civil penalty. The notice provided that a vehicle owner had "the right to contest this violation in person at an administrative hearing or by mail if [the owner] reside[d] outside of the State of Iowa." The notice also provided, "Failure to pay the penalty or contest liability by the due date is an admission of liability and will result in this penalty being forwarded to collections or for filing in state district court."
The options provided to the vehicle owner in the notice did not track the city's ATE ordinance. The city's ordinance provided two options to a vehicle owner issued a notice of violation. Id. § 114-243(d)(1)-(2). First, the vehicle owner could voluntarily pay the penalty. Id. § 114-243(d)(1). Second, the vehicle owner could "dispute the citation by requesting an issuance of a municipal infraction citation by the police department." Id. § 114-243(d)(2).
Just as the notice of violation did not track the city's ordinance, the city did not follow its ordinance when enforcing the citation. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the municipal code provided, "If a recipient of an automated traffic citation does not pay the civil penalty by the stated due date or request a trial before a judge or magistrate, a municipal infraction citation will be issued to the recipient by certified mail from the police department." Id. § 114-243(d)(3). In other words, if an alleged violator did not pay the civil penalty and did not request the city issue a municipal infraction citation, the city was supposed to commence a municipal infraction proceeding.
Instead of adhering to its ordinance, the city commenced collection efforts outside court. If a vehicle owner did not pay or respond to the notice of violation within thirty days, GATSO sent a second notice. The second notice provided, Once the notice of violation was outstanding for more than sixty days, GATSO transferred the matter back to the city.
After the notice of violation was transferred back, the city availed itself of the state's income offset program to collect the civil penalty. The income offset program allows the department of administrative services to "establish a debt collection setoff procedure for collection of debts owed to [a] public agency." Iowa Code § 8A.504(1)(a) (2017). Generally speaking, the income offset program allows the department of administrative services to collect debts for public agencies by offsetting the debts against any income tax refund owed to a taxpayer. The city entered into a memorandum of understanding with the department of administrative services to use the income offset program. The memorandum provided that only debts "in the form of a liquidated sum due, owing and payable" were eligible for placement in the program. The memorandum further provided that "[a]ll applicable remedies with regard to such a debt and claim must be exhausted . . . as a condition precedent for eligibility to participate in the offset program." It was the city's obligation to develop and maintain a system for reporting eligible debts to the department. It was also the city's obligation to ensure that the debts referred to the income offset program were "legally enforceable." Under the terms of the memorandum, "To establish enforceability the debt shall . . . have been reduced to a final judgment or final agency determination that is no longer subject to appeal, certiorari, or judicial review, or has been affirmed through appeal, certiorari, or judicial review."
Before placing an alleged debt with the department of administrative services for collection in the income offset program, the city sent a reminder postcard to the vehicle owner regarding the alleged debt. The reminder postcard stated that an owner could "request an informal hearing, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 3-27, regarding placement of this debt in the State of Iowa Income Offset Program" by writing the City of Des Moines finance director.
If the vehicle owner did not respond within thirty days of receiving the postcard, the status of the debt changed to "offset eligible." The city would then send to the department of administrative services the vehicle owner's name, social security number, and the amount allegedly owed. Iowa Code § 8A.504(2)(b). If the department turned up a match, the department notified the city and held the entirety of the vehicle owner's income tax refund. The city would then send the vehicle owner a "notice of intent to offset." Id. § 8A.504(2)(f)(1). The notice provided, "If payment, or proof of payment, is not received in full within 15 days of the date of this Notice, your state income tax refund will be applied toward the balance of the citation(s)." The notice provided vehicle owners could contest the amount due by contacting the city finance department but "the only issue which will be reviewed is whether the amount due is correct under the Municipal Code." After receiving the notice, the vehicle owner could consent to the offset, pay the ATE penalty to the city directly and receive the full income tax refund, or contest the offset as set forth in the notice. Id. § 8A.504(2)(h).
The plaintiffs in this case are Francis Livingood, Christopher Maury, and Daniel Robbins. Livingood's vehicle was recorded traveling seventy-one miles per hour in a sixty-mile-per-hour area on March 14, 2014. A notice of violation was sent to Livingood's address on March 20. The amount of the civil penalty was $65. A second notice of violation was sent on May 6. Livingood did not respond to either notice. In March 2015, the city sent a notice of intent to offset Livingood's $185 tax refund to obtain the $65 civil penalty he allegedly owed. Livingood's counsel contacted the city to dispute the offset. The city responded, In October 2016, however, the city sent Livingood a postcard stating that if he did not pay the penalty by November, the ATE penalty would again be referred to the income offset program. The record in this case reflects that Livingood has not yet paid the penalty.
Maury's vehicle was recorded traveling...
To continue reading
Request your trial