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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT