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. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT