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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT