What does Statute of Limitations mean?

[GaryGGray]

I live in Ca. I have a claim against a government agency that charged for metered water in error. They admit the error and have reimbursed for the past 3 years, claiming they do not need to return what they collected prior to 3 years because that exceeds the 3 year statute of limitations as defined in Cal code of civil procedure section 338(d). Our claim dates from 4/2001 thru 3/2011. We identified the error in 4/2011 and asked for reimbursement. They credited our account for what they claim is the errors in billing for the past 3 years and claim they do not have to return the errors in billing for years 2001 - 2008 because that is excluded by statute of limitations. My interpretation is that I have 3 years to bring action starting at the time of discovery (4/2011). I do not understand their claim that their responsibility does not extend beyond 3 years prior to discovery. Can someone please help me understand what STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS means in this case.

 

[justalayman]

it means you cannot make a claim on your damages you incurred more than 3 years prior to your action.

each injury is a separate incident. Jan 2001 bill had an overcharge. You could only file a claim until Jan 2004 on that. Feb 2001 had an overcharge. You had until Feb 2004 to file a claim and so on. The account as a whole is not relevant. It is when the damages were incurred.

 

[GaryGGray]

I think I need to expand on our issue. I understand the logic that I have 3 years to pursue an error as described by 'justalayman' but it does not seem proper in our case. In 2001 the water district (gov agency) converted our billing from flat rate to metered rate. In 2004, each of the 14 members of group installed meters and we found that the district meter was consistently higher than the sum of the individual meters. We complained every year and the complaint was dismissed as leaks, meter calibration or a phantom user connected to our line. We found out in 2011 that there was a person connected to our line. This person was actually a neighbor who was being billed by the water district from 2001-2011 as a fixed rate customer. The water district has actually billed this user at a fixed rate from 2001-2010 and has billed our group for his water use at metered rate from 2001-2011. They have collected twice for his water use. We discovered the error in Apr 2011. Does this mean that they do not have to return the monies they collected from us from 2001-2011 (less 3 years) because of statute?

 

[FlyingRon]

No as pointed out, you can only file a lawsuit on the misbillings that occured within the period (which I believe may be four years in California). You discovered the error a long time ago (even if you did not know exactly why). It would seem that you should have started the action a long time ago.

 

[Zigner]

The statute of limitations begins running on the date that the incident occurred, not when it is discovered.

 

[Zigner]

No as pointed out, you can only file a lawsuit on the misbillings that occured within the period (which I believe may be four years in California). You discovered the error a long time ago (even if you did not know exactly why). It would seem that you should have started the action a long time ago.

It's 3 years (see CCP 338)

 

[justalayman]

Within three years:

(d) An action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The
cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the
discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the
fraud or mistake.

You might try arguing you were not aware of the mistake until 2011 and as such, the SOL did not begin running until the discovery of the actual error. Based on the reports you were given each year, there was no discovery of the error until the actual discovery of the other party's billing situation.

They will likely argue that you can only go back to 2008 because you were aware of "a problem" and it was your lack of determining the cause before now that it went on so long.

another possible defense on their part is that they did not install the water system and as such, were not in control of whom could draw water from this metered system and it was actually your error in allowing the other user to remain connected to your system.

The water district has actually billed this user at a fixed rate from 2001-2010 and has billed our group for his water use at metered rate from 2001-2011.

what it really sounds like is this user is the one who has a claim for being billed independently of the group he was a member of and the members of the group would have a claim against him for what the group paid that included his usage.

 

[Zigner]

His first argument would be trying to prove that the statute of limitations you cited is the one that applies, as opposed to CCP 338, which they think applies.

 

[justalayman]

The statute of limitations begins running on the date that the incident occurred, not when it is discovered.

not true in the statute applied. It is the time of discovery that begins the time but the question here is:

was the error discovered when the billed usage did not match the usage recorded by the group or when it was realized that there was a party that was being supplied through the same metering as the rest of this group that was not included in the group billing.

 

[Zigner]

Oy Vey! OP was very clear that they were applying section (d) - my apologies. Please ignore my prior posts...justalayman is correct.