Judge Hill rules against Ingram in bid for legal fees

Judge Hill rules against Ingram in bid for legal fees

Wheeless says judge ‘ made the right decision’

news@theeveningtimes.com

A circuit court judge has sided with Crittenden County and ruled against awarding State Senator Keith Ingram attorney's fees to cover the cost of filing an injunction to stop collection of a sales tax for the now bankrupt and defunct Crittenden Regional Hospital.

Judge Victor Hill ruled on Wednesday that Ingram was not entitled to a refund of attorney's fees because he did not request them within the allowed time frame after the ruling for the injunction was granted.

Hill said that although Arkansas law does allow for attorney's fees to be collected in cases of an illegal exaction of taxpayer's money, at no time did Ingram ever file a request to be reimbursed for any attorney's fees.

The court has specifically held that 'attorney's fees are not to be allowed in an illegal exaction case in which no refund is sought.' County voters passed a one cent sales tax in June 2014 to support the operation and maintenance of Crittenden Regional Hospital.

The tax would have generated $30 million over five years.

But despite passage of the tax, CRH filed for bankruptcy and closed in August 2014 leaving more than $30 million in debt, including a lien on the county owned hospital building.

Ingram filed an injunction to stop collection of the tax but the county objected, claiming that the only way to stop the tax was through another vote of the people.

Hill granted the injunction on the grounds that the tax was put in place specifically to repair, renovate, equip, and maintain Crittenden Regional Hospital.

Since the hospital had closed, there was no longer a reason to collect the tax.

The tax was subsequently repealed by the voters, but about $20,000 was still collected before it could be halted.

Ingram's attorney, Chadd Durrett, argued that the reason they never filed to recover attorney's fees was because they did not expect any money to be collected.

The county argued that Durrett did not file any claim for attorney's fee in the 18 months since the injunction was granted and that they only now filed their claim because they are trying to get a slice of the $20,000.

Hill agreed with the county that Ingram was not entitled to recover any money at this late a juncture.

'In its review of the court file, the court finds no pleading in which the plaintiff requests a refund of any tax funds received,' Hill wrote.

Hill further wrote that it was the county who filed a motion seeking the court's direction on how the money should be distributed.

Hill said it will be up to another court to decide how to refund the money.

'At this point the court cannot say what will happen with the funds,' Hill wrote. 'Their disposition must await the outcome of a future proceeding.'

County Judge Woody Wheeless said he was pleased with the court's ruling.

'We think he made the right decision,' Wheeless said. 'We said all along that he wasn't entitled to that money. They had an opportunity

to do that 18 months

ago. That's why we opposed him.'

Wheeless said the only reason Ingram filed the motion was because he saw that there was money available and wanted to reward a buddy at the taxpayers expense.

'Just because they saw there was some money there they decided to go after it,' Wheeless said.

'That's just wrong.'

By Mark Randall