ILNews

Town lacked needed consents to annex land

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals 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 arose in the annexation battle between the Greenwood and Bargersville in City of Greenwood, Ind., et al. v. Town of Bargersville, Ind., No. 41A05-0912-CV-684.

The annexation proceedings in this case happened through Bargersville obtaining the consent of at least 51 percent of the owners of land in the territory Bargersville proposed to annex. The 1,847 acres were within 3 miles of Greenwood’s city limits. Greenwood also wanted to annex the land.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Bargersville and voided Greenwood’s attempted annexation.

The Court of Appeals first ruled that Greenwood did have standing to seek a declaratory judgment on the validity of the annexation based on whether 51 percent of landowners consented to the annexation. The judges also found that as a matter of law, fewer than 51 percent consented pursuant to I.C. Section 36-4-3-9.

In order for the annexation to be valid, 377 parcels had to validly consent to the annexation. Not all the landowners had signed the same documents. Some of the signed forms explicitly gave consent to the annexation and others who signed a sewer service agreement stated they waived any objections to annexation, but didn’t give specific consent. At least 55 percent of the parcels are subject to sewer service agreements that were executed before the amendment of I.C. Section 36-4-3-9.

Waiving the right to object to, remonstrate against, or appeal an annexation isn’t the same as consenting to an annexation under the statute, wrote Judge Terry Crone. The judge compared it to a legislator voting either for or against a bill or abstaining from voting.

“Just as abstaining is not the same as voting for a bill, not remonstrating against an annexation is not the same as consenting to an annexation,” he wrote.

Those who signed the sewer service agreements don’t constitute valid consent to the annexation. The appellate court expressed no opinion on the validity of those agreements or on the validity of the remaining documents on which Bargersville and the trial court relied in finding 51 percent had consented. They also emphasized that the decision in no way impacts the landowners’ statutory right to remonstrate against Greenwood’s proposed annexation on remand.

“Even assuming the validity of those documents, far fewer than 51% of the landowners in the Territory consented to Bargersville's annexation. Therefore, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bargersville and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” wrote Judge Crone.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT