Anderson v. Gaudin
2015 Ind. LEXIS 722
| Ind. | 2015Background
- In 2007 Brown County Commissioners enacted an ordinance under the Fire District Act creating a county-wide Brown County Fire Protection District with four townships and a five-member Board of Fire Trustees.
- Landowners challenged creation; Court of Appeals upheld commissioners’ authority to create the district by ordinance in Sanders v. Bd. of Comm’rs (2008).
- After a later election, newly elected commissioners passed an ordinance purporting to dissolve the District; Court of Appeals held in Gaudin I (2010) that dissolution requires the petition process in Ind. Code § 36-8-11-24. This Court initially split and reinstated the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
- In 2011 commissioners adopted an amending ordinance removing a township, reducing trustees from five to three, narrowing the district’s purpose to fire-education, and restricting taxing powers. Landowners sued seeking declaratory relief that the amendment was void as a de facto dissolution.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to landowners; Court of Appeals affirmed. This Court granted transfer, disapproved Gaudin I, and reversed summary judgment, holding under the Home Rule Act commissioners may amend (even dissolve) a fire district ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county commissioners may amend (or effectively dissolve) an ordinance that established a fire protection district | Amendment was a de facto dissolution; Fire District Act prescribes only the petition process for dissolution, barring unilateral commissioner action | Home Rule Act permits units to exercise any power not expressly denied by statute; Fire District Act does not forbid amendments and grants counties authority to set a district’s purposes | Commissioners may amend the establishing ordinance under the Home Rule Act; amended ordinance is valid |
| Whether the Board of Trustees obtained exclusive control of district powers upon establishment | Commissioners relinquished authority; powers "may be used only" to accomplish ordinance purposes, so trustees control scope | Section limiting district powers constrains the district, not the county; Legislature delegated authority to counties to create and prescribe scope | Establishing a district does not necessarily transfer exclusive amendment authority to trustees; commissioners retain amendment power under Home Rule |
| Whether imposing duties on a municipal corporation prohibits a unit’s amendment power | A unit cannot impose duties on another political subdivision except by statute — so commissioners lack power to change duties of the district | Legislature expressly delegated creation and scope prescription to counties under Fire District Act, so counties may amend within Act limits | Legislature’s delegation supports county authority to amend; not barred by anti-imposition rule when authorized by statute/Home Rule |
| Whether prior appellate decision (Gaudin I) controls law of the case or prevents this Court from overruling it | Plaintiffs rely on Gaudin I and statutory dissolution procedure to preclude unilateral amendment/dissolution | Defendants argue Gaudin I incorrectly interpreted the Act and Home Rule allows amendment; this Court may revisit earlier evenly divided decision | This Court disapproves Gaudin I and holds commissioners may amend; law-of-the-case not applied to bar reconsideration here |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Brown Cty., 892 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (upheld county commissioners’ authority to create fire district by ordinance)
- Gaudin v. Austin, 921 N.E.2d 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Court of Appeals held dissolution requires petition process; later disapproved by Indiana Supreme Court)
- Anderson v. Gaudin, 24 N.E.3d 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (affirmed trial court that amendment was de facto dissolution; Court of Appeals decision at issue)
- City of North Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg’l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005) (standards for statutory interpretation and summary judgment referenced)
- Young v. Hood’s Gardens, Inc., 24 N.E.3d 421 (Ind. 2015) (canon against extending statutory scope beyond legislative text cited)
- DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer, 847 N.E.2d 160 (Ind. 2006) (legislative inaction may indicate acquiescence to judicial interpretation)
- Hopkins v. State, 782 N.E.2d 988 (Ind. 2003) (explains Law of the Case Doctrine and when courts may revisit prior rulings)