ILNews

Opponents won't appeal Geist annexation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opponents from the 66,000-person town of Geist announced Monday they won't appeal annexation to Fishers. With that, a different Hamilton County legal land battle has become the case attorneys are watching as the one that could be the first real test of Indiana's remonstrance law.

Geist residents announced they wouldn't appeal a Dec. 31 decision from Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation that ruled Fishers could annex 2,200 upscale homes on the Geist Reservoir. The Geist area will become part of Fishers next year.

Opponents vowed to appeal Geist v. Town of Fishers, No. 29D01-8404-MI-497-499, but now say they won't continue the legal fight because new property tax caps adopted into law last year mean their taxes won't change much, as had been expected when the annexation battle began four years ago.

This means a similar case that had been put on hold while Geist played out can be focused on more closely. The case of Carmel v. Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 29A04-0510-CV-578, involves the city's move to annex the 1.6-square mile area near 106th Street and College Avenue.

Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes had determined in 2005 that Carmel couldn't afford the annexation and ruled in favor of Home Place, but the Court of Appeals reversed his decision in October 2007, determining Judge Hughes had erred in auditing a financial plan and ruling in favor of the remonstrators. The appellate court also found that Carmel had adequately proved it could afford to annex the area. The Indiana Supreme Court decided last year not to take the case, leaving it to Judge Hughes on remand.

The judge put the case on hold late last year while the Geist case went through the court system, but now hearings will be scheduled again.

Bose McKinney & Evans attorney Bryan Babb, who represents Carmel, said attorneys are currently assessing how Judge Nation's order in Geist will impact the Home Place case. One important development that wasn't at issue previously in Home Place was the impact of the property-tax caps, which influenced the Geist decision to not appeal, he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT