ILNews

Justices' split reinstates COA annexation ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A split decision by the Indiana Supreme Court on an annexation battle between Greenwood and Bargersville means a lower appellate panel’s decision is reinstated and the city takes a win in the 29-month legal battle that has statewide implications.

Justices issued an order Monday in the case of City of Greenwood, Ind., et al. v. Town of Bargersville, Ind., No. 41A05-0912-CV-684, but with one of the five justices recusing himself, the remaining four couldn’t agree on which side should prevail. Justice Frank Sullivan recused himself from the case for reasons the court has not outlined, and that left a divide in the remaining jurists.

The order is dated Jan. 29, but attorneys in the case say they received it on Monday afternoon.

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Steven David would have affirmed the trial judge in favor of Bargersville, while Justices Brent Dickson and Robert Rucker would have reversed the ruling – as the Court of Appeals had done last year – and ruled in Greenwood’s favor. Those four justices heard arguments on Jan. 20.

With that split, Indiana Appellate Rule 58 dictates that the intermediate appellate court’s decision on July 15, 2010, is reinstated. In that ruling, the three-judge panel addressed for the first time whether the waiver of the right to object to, remonstrate against, or appeal an annexation constitutes “consent” to an annexation under Indiana Code Section 36-4-3-9.

The issue in this case was whether 51 percent of the landowners being annexed had consented when they signed a previous sewer-service agreement, which had given consent for the sewer service and waived objection to annexation, but didn’t consent to that land swap as required by law. Specifically, the land in question was 1,847 acres along State Road 135 in Johnson County that fell within three miles of the city limits, and the issue triggered statutory impact about what kind of consent was required.

At least 55 percent of the parcels were subject to sewer-service agreements, but the appellate judges found in the end that less than 51 percent of the landowners had consented to the annexation. Waiving the right to object to, remonstrate against, or appeal an annexation isn’t the same as consenting to an annexation under the statute, Judge Terry Crone wrote last year.

This decision ends this appeal and issue, and the city is now able to proceed with annexation attempts. The Court of Appeals noted in its ruling last summer that it in no way impacts the landowners’ statutory right to remonstrate against Greenwood’s proposed annexation on remand.

Indianapolis attorney Karl Mulvaney, a longtime appellate lawyer who represented Greenwood, said that he was pleased with the result but that it was a rare happening for it to culminate this way – few cases result in a split and reenactment of the lower appellate ruling. He had notified the city of the decision but wasn’t aware of what might happen next at the city level concerning annexation. City attorney Shawna Koons-Davis couldn’t be immediately reached today.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • What is next
    This case is more than consent. It is unfortunate (and fortunate) that the court only hears arguments on portions of a problem.
    In this case Greenwood an incorporated city is looking for revenue. Bargersville inc. Town is doing no different.
    The results of this decision really doesnt fix the problem.
    Cities and Towns are broke - manifest destinies of land and walmart or discount tobacco shops will not fix the sidewalks in your established areas.
    Why is it that we think that the farm on the "edge" of town would make a good place for an 800 unit apartment complex, or a 24 hour meijer? Why not, it is progress it is revenue - it is a mess. Greenwood needs to slow down and not leap frog sewers gamble with tax payer dollars and see how far they can annex and kick the can down the road to the next administration. In the same breath Bargersville needs to slow down and think about annexing just for the sake of annexing.

    Is this not an important decision? If i lived somewhere else could it affect me? Is this no different than being conquered? Are the people that live on 5 acres unwillingly annexed by a town or city - how do you remonstrate. How can you be left alone?

    What is next unigov for cities or town, or just whoever gets there first?

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

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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. "...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.

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

ADVERTISEMENT