Raw sewage ruined her home, then city offered her just $15K on the spot, lawsuit says
On a routine day, the City of Charlotte safely handles almost 80 million gallons of raw sewage.
On what she describes as the worst morning of her life, Stephanie Walker says a clogged sewer main in her northside neighborhood threw the waste-disposal system into reverse and backed an ungodly amount of the muck into her home. It geysered out of her toilets and spread inches deep through every room.
In a matter of minutes, the 76-year-old widow was homeless.
She blames the city.
In her new 16-page federal lawsuit, Walker and her attorney allege that not only did city sewer lines cause the problem, but city policies unnecessarily prolonged Walker’s ordeal.
First — and while raw sewage was still streaming through Walker’s home — a city representative made a maximum settlement offer of $15,000, well before the full extent of the damages to her property were known, the lawsuit alleges.
Next, according to the complaint, the city demanded that Walker waive any future claims against the city before she had access to the money, delaying her home repairs for months. The waiver also required Walker to meet a higher standard of proof if she sued.
Other damages Walker incurred were not the city’s concern, says her attorney, Shane Perry of Mooresville, whom The Charlotte Observer contacted after he filed the suit.
The city, according to the complaint, refused to pay for Walker to have a hotel room; refused to pay to replace ruined furniture, cabinets and other belongings; refused to cover living costs or compensate Walker for the emotional suffering she experienced while being forced out of her home for almost eight months.
In the end, Walker signed the city’s waivers only because she was on the verge of sleeping in her car, Perry says.
“The truth is the city has been absolutely disgusting in the way they have handled this. Abhorrent,” Perry said.
“She’s a taxpayer. She helped pay for that sewer system. ... This is the City of Charlotte. This is how they treat their citizens?”
During an Observer phone interview Tuesday, Walker said some of the hardest parts of the past year involved her standing up alone against a city that, she says, didn’t appear to care about what her life had become.
“It was being single, the loneliness, and not knowing where to turn,” she said. “People telling you that they understand, that they sympathize, that they’re sorry. But then finding out that the city is not as compassionate or understanding or helpful as they say they are, discovering that it was hands off.”
Senior Assistant City Attorney Court Fulton, who represented the city in negotiations over the settlement of Walker’s damages, did not respond to an Observer email Tuesday that included specific questions concerning the lawsuit’s allegations.
Spokesman Lawrence Corley told the Observer that the city would not comment on a pending court case.
In response to a series of Observer questions about the handling of Walker’s case, Corley said the city would provide answers to the court at an appropriate time.
Walker’s ordeal, according to her complaint, exposes “the City’s utter disregard for the plight of a Charlottean that it damaged” and shows “the intent of the city to take advantage of underprivileged citizens.”
During his phone interview with the Observer, Perry elaborated.
“If this was the mayor’s house, do you think we’d have to file a lawsuit to get what she deserves? It would have been taken care of day one,” he said. “But this wasn’t Vi Lyles’ house. This house belonged to a nobody.”
“What power does a retired, widowed, septuagenarian have against Charlotte?”
Gurgling toilets
Walker, a retired Duke Energy employee, paid to have her home built on Granite Creek Lane in the Nevin neighborhood, north of Derita, and moved in 35 years ago. She has been a widow since 2007, collects Social Security and works two days a week at her church, Statesville Avenue Presbyterian.
A year ago, she says she rose at 6 a.m., let her Jack Russell terrier out in the yard, and was about to make a cup of coffee when she heard a gurgling sound coming from her main bathroom.
The noise stopped, then resumed. But this time, the gurgling was coming from her half-bath. When she investigated, she says she found wastewater spewing from the tank and bowl of the toilet.
“The nightmare had begun,” Walker said.
She called 311 and says she was told by the city that the problem was on her property and not on the city’s right-of-way.
Eventually, city inspectors found the actual cause of the backup — the main sewer line near Walker’s home had been blocked by a roll of sheet rock tape, the lawsuit claims.
Perry says the damage to Walker’s home was not covered by her insurance, and that many other homeowner’s policies also would not pay.
Less than an hour after making the 311 call, Walker was standing in her front yard watching a rush of untreated wastewater spew from an outdoor valve below her front window when a claim adjuster from the city appeared with an offer.
The city would pay Walker $15,000 to repair her home — a settlement cap for sewage damages that had been in place since 1990 — if she agreed to waive any future claims of damages. Otherwise, she wouldn’t get the money, according to the lawsuit.
The settlement figure became a sticking point when the repair company Walker hired from the city’s preferred list estimated that it would cost more than $38,000 just to make the home livable again.
That number was based on using the cheapest materials available and did not include any money to replace her ruined belongings, pay for her living expenses or compensate her for the emotional suffering she experienced from the loss of her house.
Last summer, the City Council updated its 32-year-old “sewer backup policy” to pay out as much as $45,000 to affected homeowners — an amount that the lawsuit claims still fell far short of what Walker had lost.
In a July 6, 2022 email to Perry that is included in the lawsuit, Fulton repeated the city’s condition that Walker wouldn’t receive any of the money until she signed the waivers.
Perry responded, at times heatedly.
“When her house is restored, she literally has no furniture to move into the house. Do you suggest she sleep on the floor?” he wrote.
“... She did not ask for any of this to happen. It literally invaded her home. Is she supposed to go looking for furniture to buy? These are not rhetorical questions. I would like a real answer. Does Charlotte expect Ms. Walker to go buy furniture?”
A day later, Perry wrote back, again telling Fulton that Walker did not have a bed to sleep on because her old one had been contaminated with sewage.
Fulton suggested in his reply that Walker “might make a claim for the actual cash value of any damaged contents or furniture.” Any such claims, however, would count toward the city’s $45,000 cap — assuming Walker signed the waivers and got the money.
Perry soon counter-offered, saying his client “was desperate enough” to settle her claim for $65,000.
Fulton, according to the lawsuit, refused to budge.
On Aug. 8, Perry gave up.
“Ms. Walker is losing her housing (with a family member) and will be sleeping in her car,” he wrote. “She has no choice but to sign ... She’s in her late 70s and she won’t last long living in her car.”
Walker signed the release two days later, but added a caveat under her signature:
“I’m homeless and I don’t have another choice,” she wrote.
The city, displaying “unmitigated heartlessness,” according to the lawsuit, rejected the document and said Walker had to sign a clean copy.
Otherwise, according to Fulton’s email, she would leave the impression that the release “was not signed freely and under no duress.”
Final repairs
Walker’s lawsuit accuses the city of undue influence in forcing her to sign the waivers, negligence in its operation of its sewer system, as well as violations of the U.S. and North Carolina constitutions, among other claims.
It calls for a jury trial as well as compensatory damages.
Wednesday marks the one-year anniversary of Walker’s sewage disaster. She says she’ll spend part of the day on a final walk-through with the foreman of her repair crew.
She’s happy to be back in her house, but she’s says she’s not entirely satisfied with some of the fixes.
After all this time, her home, she says, is not quite right.
This story was originally published February 15, 2023 at 12:50 PM.
