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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A traditional parade of attorneys? Really Evansville? Y'all need to get out more. When is the traditional parade of notaries? Nurses? Sanitation workers? Pole dancers? I gotta wonder, do throngs of admiring citizens gather to laud these marching servants of the constitution? "Show us your billing records!!!" Hoping some video gets posted. Ours is not a narcissistic profession by any chance, is it? Nah .....

  2. My previous comment not an aside at court. I agree with smith. Good call. Just thought posting here a bit on the if it bleeds it leads side. Most attorneys need to think of last lines of story above.

  3. Hello everyone I'm Gina and I'm here for the exact same thing you are. I have the wonderful joy of waking up every morning to my heart being pulled out and sheer terror of what DCS is going to Throw at me and my family today.Let me start from the !bebeginning.My daughter lost all rights to her 3beautiful children due to Severe mental issues she no longer lives in our state and has cut all ties.DCS led her to belive that once she done signed over her right the babies would be with their family. We have faught screamed begged and anything else we could possibly due I hired a lawyer five grand down the drain.You know all I want is my babies home.I've done everything they have even asked me to do.Now their saying I can't see my grandchildren cause I'M on a prescription for paipain.I have a very rare blood disease it causes cellulitis a form of blood poisoning to stay dormant in my tissues and nervous system it also causes a ,blood clotting disorder.even with the two blood thinners I'm on I still Continue to develop them them also.DCS knows about my illness and still they refuse to let me see my grandchildren. I Love and miss them so much Please can anyone help Us my grandchildren and I they should be worrying about what toy there going to play with but instead there worrying about if there ever coming home again.THANK YOU DCS FOR ALL YOU'VE DONE. ( And if anyone at all has any ideals or knows who can help. Please contact (765)960~5096.only serious callers

  4. He must be a Rethuglican, for if from the other side of the aisle such acts would be merely personal and thus not something that attaches to his professional life. AND ... gotta love this ... oh, and on top of talking dirty on the phone, he also, as an aside, guess we should mention, might be important, not sure, but .... "In addition to these allegations, Keaton was accused of failing to file an appeal after he collected advance payment from a client seeking to challenge a ruling that the client repay benefits because of unreported income." rimshot

  5. I am not a fan of some of the 8.4 discipline we have seen for private conduct-- but this was so egregious and abusive and had so many points of bad conduct relates to the law and the lawyer's status as a lawyer that it is clearly a proper and just disbarment. A truly despicable account of bad acts showing unfit character to practice law. I applaud the outcome.

ADVERTISEMENT