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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT