Judge Denies Town's Request For Summary Judgment in O'Dell Lawsuit

A Superior Court judge denied Tiverton's motion for a summary judgment on Monday that would have disposed of a lawsuit by 16 residents seeking a refund over alleged overtaxing by the town in fiscal year 2011.

The group of citizens involved in the case claim the property-tax increase in the 2010-11 budget year was illegal because it exceeded the state mandated cap on the levy increase without the support of a four-fifths majority of the Town Council.

"Our biggest fear, we still fear, that the previous power mongers are going to try to revive the Financial Town Meeting," said Jim O'Dell, a named plaintiff in the suit against the town. "If they do revive it, then we are back at square one with the tax cap."

On Monday, the town requested the case be disposed as the standards of the Financial Town Referendum, which are reflected in the Tiverton Town Charter adhere to the plaintiffs demands.

"At this point, because we have gone from the Financial Town Meeting to the Financial Town Referendum and charter had been changed to reflect that," said James Goncalo, town administrator. "The judge denied it based not on that there were factual disagreements, but he indicated that the case involved statutory construction and ruled that in his eyes it is not moot and that the plaintiffs are still seeking a refund of alleged over assessments."

Several months ago Tiverton tried to settle with the plaintiffs, offering a monetary amount equal to over the alleged over assessment, according to Goncalo. It was denied by the plaintiffs.

"I cannot remember the exact terms, but I do know the monetary damages were a joke, I know legal fees were not included, and I also know one thing what we really want is we want in a consent judgment," said O'Dell. "We want the judge to sign an agreement that the town cannot ever exceed the tax cap again without a [four-fifths] majority vote."

A similar suit was filed in 2008 and Danielle Coulter, wife of current Town Councilor Robert Coulter, was listed as one of the plaintiffs. The state Ethics Commission ruled Coulter is allowed to participate in decisions on the current suit because he has no financial stake in the outcome.

Hearings will continue until a ruling is reached, however the next Superior Court date has not yet been scheduled.