American Cold Storage v. The City of Boonville, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 506

Boonville annexed 1,165 acres west of its limits by Ordinance 2008-2; landowners oppose.
The remonstrance procedure requires 65% of landowners or 75% in assessed value to object to annexation.
The trial court dismissed the remonstrance for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The issue centers on whether State Road 62 parcels should be counted as one parcel or multiple for the 65% Rule.
Boonville I held tax-exempt parcels are counted and that adjacent road parcels were not counted; Landowners lacked standing.
This appeal reverses and remands, counting State Road 62 as a single parcel rather than multiple parcels, to reflect the General Assembly’s remonstrance intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
How should State Road 62 parcels be counted for the 65% Rule?	Landowners: count each State Road 62 parcel separately.	Boonville: count State Road 62 as multiple parcels.	Count as a single parcel; trial court erred.
Was the Landowners’ challenge waived due to not raised on first appeal?	Landowners: issue not waived.	Boonville: issue was waived.	Not waived; Court declines waiver/Boonville I distinctions control.

City of Fort Wayne v. Certain Northeast Annexation Area Landowners, 564 N.E.2d 297 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (one-parcel-one-vote principle for remonstrance counting)
Arnold v. City of Terre Haute, 725 N.E.2d 869 (Ind.2000) (adopts one-parcel-one-vote interpretation of remonstrance statute)
Booneville I, 950 N.E.2d 764 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (held tax-exempt parcels counted; rejected counting abutting road parcels; Landowners lacked standing)
State ex rel. Ind. State Police v. Arnold, 906 N.E.2d 167 (Ind.2009) (statutory interpretation context for remonstrance purposes)
Gardner v. Prochno, 963 N.E.2d 620 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (case commentary on statutory interpretation and policy)
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 868 N.E.2d 50 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (remonstrance statute interpretation framework)