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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT