ILNews

COA affirms rulings for Sellersburg in annexation case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The town of Sellersburg’s annexation proceedings should take priority over an incorporation proceeding involving the same area of land, the Indiana Court of Appeals held.

In Covered Bridge Homeowners Association, Inc., Clark County, Indiana Commission, et al. v. Town of Sellersburg, Indiana, 10A01-1101-PL-13, landowners in the 1,800 acres in Clark County that Sellersburg intended to annex filed a remonstrance against it. Sellersburg’s town council approved a written fiscal plan and introduced its annexation ordinance in June 2008, but it failed to send out notices to all affected landowners. A hearing scheduled in August was cancelled, and negotiations between the council and the landowners on the proposed annexation failed.

In August 2009, the landowners filed a petition with the Clark County Commissioners to incorporate the new town of Covered Bridge. The commissioners adopted an ordinance approving the landowners’ petition. Just days later, the Sellersburg council adopted the proposed annexation ordinance.

Sellersburg sued the commissioners, arguing it was “first in time” and its annexation should take priority. The landowners’ association and others also filed a remonstrance against the annexation, to which Sellersburg filed a motion to dismiss based on remonstrance waiver provisions executed by subdivision developers as a condition for connection to Sellersburg’s sewer system.

The trial judges ruled in favor of Sellersburg in both cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the annexation proceeding is first in time and takes priority over the incorporation proceeding because it was validly instituted in June 2008. Sellersburg’s initial failure to comply with the statutory notice provisions and hold a public hearing didn’t invalidate the annexation.

The COA also held that the statutory remonstrance waiver requirements were substantially complied with and so the remonstrance lacks sufficient valid signatures.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT