McCoy v. Town of Kingston
Decision Date | 02 May 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 06-P-396.,06-P-396. |
Citation | 864 N.E.2d 1251,68 Mass. App. Ct. 819 |
Parties | Charles F. McCOY, Jr. v. TOWN OF KINGSTON. |
Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Gregg J. Corbo, Boston, for the defendant.
Present: DOERFER, KATZMANN, & VUONO, JJ.
Charles F. McCoy, Jr., an elected tax collector for the town of Kingston (town), filed suit against the town in the Superior Court seeking declaratory relief and indemnification for legal fees incurred in a dispute with a Kingston taxpayer. On cross motions for summary judgment, the judge determined that McCoy was not entitled to indemnification due to (1) the inapplicability of G.L. c. 258, § 13, to the dispute; and (2) his failure to seek the selectmen's prior approval before incurring private counsel fees, as required by a 1994 town policy. On appeal, McCoy argues that both of the judge's determinations were erroneous. Because McCoy failed to seek prior approval under the town policy, we affirm the judgment.
Background. We set out the material facts of the case, which are not in dispute and present only questions of law on summary judgment. See Annese Elec. Servs., Inc. v. Newton, 431 Mass. 763, 764 & n. 2, 730 N.E.2d 290 (2000). On May 10, 1980, the town accepted the provisions of G.L. c. 258, § 13. That section of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act provides:
"Any city or town [accepting this section] shall indemnify and save harmless municipal officers, elected or appointed from personal financial loss and expense including reasonable legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed one million dollars, arising out of any claim, demand, suit or judgment by reason of any act or omission, except an intentional violation of civil rights of any person, if the official at the time of such act or omission was acting within the scope of his official duties or employment."
G.L. c. 258, § 13, St.1982, c. 176, § 1. After a vote in November, 1994, the town selectmen notified all town officials of the town's policy not to pay special counsel unless the selectmen approved the appointment of such counsel prior to any costs being incurred (the 1994 town policy).
At all times material to this case, McCoy was the duly elected tax collector for the town. In April, 1998, in connection with his attempts to collect excise taxes, a dispute arose between McCoy and Liddell Brothers, Inc. (Liddell). Liddell wrote a letter complaint dated May 1, 1998, to the town selectmen about the dispute with McCoy.1 The letter stated in part, On May 20, 1998, Liddell's counsel wrote to McCoy directly, as tax collector, about the dispute, stating in part:
"Please be advised that unless this matter is resolved within one (1) week from the date hereof, my client has instructed me to present and bring all available claims against all responsible parties, both individually and in their official capacity, seeking damages, including any damage to reputation."
Without prior approval of the town selectmen, McCoy retained a law firm as private counsel, initially paying a retainer of $2,500.
On May 28, 1998, Liddell's counsel wrote to McCoy's counsel, stating in pertinent part:
The chairman of the town board of selectmen was copied in both the May 20 and May 28 letters.
Subsequently, prior to the filing of any complaint, Liddell and McCoy, individually and as tax collector, entered into a mutual release and settlement agreement. Liddell agreed to pay the full amount of the excise taxes due with interest, a total of $6,099.30. In short, Liddell paid the town just $419.30 more than the original payment which it had tendered on April 10, 1998.
McCoy's counsel billed him $12,170.36.2 McCoy submitted a request for indemnification to the town, which, in May, 2000, voted to deny the request. McCoy's counsel brought suit against McCoy to recover legal fees and obtained a judgment against him in the amount of $11,669.92. By complaint filed June 24, 2002, McCoy brought this action against the town seeking declaratory relief and indemnification. On cross motions for summary judgment, the Superior Court judge, relying on general language in Triplett v. Oxford, 439 Mass. 720, 724, 791 N.E.2d 310 (2003) (Triplett) concluded that none of the various communications from Liddell or Liddell's counsel reflected a "claim" or a "demand" under G.L. c. 258, § 13. In addition, the judge concluded that the town properly could impose a supplemental requirement of the selectmen's prior approval before incurring any liability under § 13, and that McCoy's failure to obtain such approval barred his claim.
Discussion. On appeal, McCoy contests both rationales for the decision. We address each argument in turn.
1. Application of G.L. c. 258, § 13. As noted, on May 10, 1980, the town accepted the indemnification provision of the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act, G.L. c. 258, § 13, and is required to indemnify McCoy, as a municipal officer, if he meets the requisite criteria. Thus, at issue is whether McCoy's action for indemnification arises "out of any claim, demand, suit or judgment" against him as set forth by § 13. We conclude that his action does arise out of a "claim."3
The issue is whether McCoy's request for indemnification of attorney's fees arises out of a claim of Liddell against McCoy in his capacity as Kingston tax collector. The town asserts that the judge was correct in concluding that because Liddell never actually filed a civil action against McCoy, McCoy is not entitled to reimbursement for attorney's fees. In support of this proposition, Kingston relies on Triplett, 439 Mass. at 724, 791 N.E.2d 310. In Triplett, the Supreme Judicial Court explained that the word "claim" as it is used throughout c. 258 refers to a civil action for tort damages. Ibid. Here, because the Liddell dispute did not qualify as a civil action for tort damages, the judge determined that it was not a claim under § 13.
We do not agree with the judge's application of Triplett. There, the court was not faced with the issue presented here by the Liddell dispute, which is rooted in tort. Rather, in Triplett, presented with the question whether a criminal indictment or ethics charges constituted a "claim" cognizable for indemnification under § 13, the Supreme Judicial Court examined whether they constituted a "claim" "in any ordinary sense of the word," ibid., and determined that they did not. Cf. Irwin v. Ware, 392 Mass. 745, 772, 467 N.E.2d 1292 (1984) ( ). The Triplett court was not presented with the question whether threatened, imminent filing of a specific suit in tort can constitute a claim for purposes of indemnification under § 13 where a civil action has not yet been instituted.
Adoption of Marlene, 443 Mass. 494, 497-498, 822 N.E.2d 714 (2005). Moreover, "[w]here words in a statute are used in one part of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. City of Brockton
...loss and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and costs, subject to specified conditions." McCoy v. Town of Kingston, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 819, 827, 864 N.E.2d 1251, 1258 (2007). The record in the instant case shows that Brockton has not yet accepted Section 13. Therefore, it is not requi......
-
McCoy v. Town of Kingston
...v. TOWN OF KINGSTON. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. June 29, 2007. Further appellate review denied. Reported below: 68 Mass.App.Ct. 819, 864 N.E.2d 1251. Justice Cowin did not ...
-
Sisson v. Apbert
...v. Kingston, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 819, 826-27 (2007). In that case, an elected tax collector incurred legal fees in a dispute with a taxpayer. Id. at 820. The tax collector retained counsel without seeking approval from the Board of Selectmen, in violation of a 1994 town policy. Id. The court he......