Kenyghatta Davis v. The…

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for the City, holding that municipal authority to establish rates and charges for waterworks services includes authority to impose late fees and that the statutes authorizing judicial collection remedies do not make court action the exclusive means of recovering delinquent charges. The court also held that the fees were not usurious or unconscionable because customers could avoid them by timely payment and the City presented evidence that they were intended to encourage prompt payment. Justice Wynne, joined by Justice Danielson, dissented, concluding that material factual questions remained concerning whether the fees were just and equitable and necessary to the water department's operation.