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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT