Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 v. City of Evansville
955 N.E.2d 769
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- City enacted Annexation Ordinance F-2008-15 to annex certain parcels, with notices published October 2008 and a public hearing in December 2008.
- Amendment on January 26, 2009 reduced the annexed territory; Amended Annexation Ordinance published March 13, 2009.
- Remonstrators filed a combined remonstrance and declaratory relief on May 20, 2009.
- Court dismissed remonstrance for lack of 65% signatories; remonstrators responded claiming sufficient signatures and moved for partial summary judgment.
- Stipulation fixed October 8, 2008 as the date for parcel-count and assessed-value determinations relevant to remonstrance.
- November 2010–January 2011: trial court dismissed remonstrance and granted City’s reconsideration; final judgment for City entered January 21, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the remonstrance challenge moot due to annexation becoming effective? | Remonstrators contend issues remain reviewable despite effectiveness. | Annexation is already effective; no relief possible to remedy on appeal. | Moot; no effective relief available. |
| Did remonstrators meet the 65% by number (or 75% by value) signature requirement? | Signatures comprised enough landowners to meet 65% threshold. | Only 62.78% of parcels signed; below 65% threshold. | Remonstrance dismissed for insufficient signatures. |
| Can the remonstrators bring a declaratory judgment action challenging annexation? | Declaratory relief available for procedural defects and rights under annexation. | Remonstrance is the exclusive vehicle; declaratory relief limited unless fraud or rights impairment. | Declaratory judgment action dismissed; remonstrance controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. City of New Castle, 764 N.E.2d 212 (Ind.2002) (annexation review has statutory confines; remonstrance focus)
- Rogers v. City of Mishm, 688 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind.1997) (annexation review framework; legis action is largely legislative)
- City of Carmel v. Sw. Clay Tp. Annexation Territory Landowners, 868 N.E.2d 793 (Ind.2007) (description of three-stage annexation process)
- Bradley v. City of New Castle, 764 N.E.2d 212 (Ind.2002) (annexation review standards and deference to legislative process)
- In re Petition to Annex Approximately 7,806 Acres of Real Estate into City of Jeffersonville, 891 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (use of stay to preserve issues pending appeal)
- DeSalle v. Gentry, 818 N.E.2d 40 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (public interest exception to mootness)
- City of Kokomo ex rel. Goodnight v. Pogue, 940 N.E.2d 833 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (subject matter jurisdiction concept clarified; procedural prerequisites)
- Woolverton v. Town of Albany, 52 N.E. 455 (Ind.1899) (annexation boundaries are legislative, not judicial functions)