ILNews

COA: Annexation should have been granted

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that a Circuit Court incorrectly ruled that Muncie failed to meet its statutory burden when trying to annex portions of two residential neighborhoods. The appellate court reversed the finding Muncie's ordinances annexing the land were invalid and the finding the landowners met their statutory burden to oppose the annexation.

In In re: Annexation of certain territory to the City of Muncie, Ind. v. Certain Halteman Village Section I and Brewington Woods Landowners, No. 18A02-0901-CV-89, Muncie appealed the order granting the remonstrance petitions of Halteman Village and Brewington Woods landowners, and the finding that the ordinances that annexed those neighborhoods were invalid. The trial court found the ordinances and the city's fiscal plans failed to meet Indiana Code Section 36-4-3-13(d) by failing to take into consideration the property tax caps when developing its fiscal plans, by not accounting for or providing cost estimates of planned services for the annexed land, and failing to prove fire protection services of an equivalent manner as those currently provided in Muncie could be in place in the annexed territory within a year.

Muncie officials testified at trial they had no way to know at that point the precise effect the tax caps would have on the city and on the level of services provided. The officials also said the services would be provided, regardless of the legislative change.

Subsection 13(d) only requires cost estimates, which the city of Muncie met. Therefore, the trial court erred in finding Muncie failed to meet its statutory burden to prove cost estimates based on its failure to amend the fiscal plans during trial, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

Muncie officials also testified there would be essentially no extra costs to Muncie as a result of the annexation for noncapital services, so the trial court erred in finding the city failed to meet its statutory burden on this basis, he wrote.

The trial court denied the annexation in part because it believed Muncie couldn't guarantee the needed fire hydrants could be installed within one year as required by statute because it had to be done by a public utility. Because a fiscal plan is an absolute promise that an annexed area will receive comparable capital and noncapital services, without regard to cost, Muncie has committed to provide that service and no further guarantee is required, wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court reviewed the trial court's findings that the annexation would have a significant impact on the landowners and that at least 65 percent of them opposed the annexation. There was no evidence presented on how much any landowner's taxes would increase nor how that would create a substantial financial impact.

"Furthermore, we note that all annexations add a municipal tax layer. Therefore, to find that any tax increase would cause a significant financial impact would essentially bring every annexation under the purview of this subsection (I.C. Section 36-4-3-13(e)(2)), rendering this portion of the statute meaningless," Chief Judge Baker wrote.

The Court of Appeals also found the landowners weren't entitled to relief because they couldn't prove that 65 percent of them still opposed the annexation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT