Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners v. City of Carmel, Indiana, 85 N.E.3d 926

Carmel sought to annex the Home Place area in Clay Township; Council passed Ordinance C-264 in 2004 and Landowners filed a remonstrance in 2005.
Trial court initially granted remonstrance based on alleged defects in Carmel’s fiscal plan; this court reversed in 2007, finding Carmel met the fiscal-plan requirement and remanded to consider I.C. § 36-4-3-13(e).
On remand, after years of abeyance, the trial court reviewed the original record (no new evidence) and found Landowners failed to prove fire protection was adequately furnished by a provider other than Carmel; it upheld the annexation in 2016.
Key factual findings: Carmel provided fire personnel, most equipment, administration, and insurance under a contract with Clay Township; the township owned a minority of vehicles and some stations and contributed funds but did not operate a department or supply personnel.
Landowners argued Clay Township, by statute and its financial contributions, was the legal provider of fire protection; Carmel argued the factual reality of service delivery showed Carmel furnished the services.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether fire protection in Home Place was "adequately furnished by a provider other than the municipality seeking annexation" under I.C. § 36-4-3-13(e)(2)(A)(i)	Landowners: As a matter of law Clay Township is the provider under I.C. § 36-8-13-2/3 because it contracts for and funds fire protection; statutory "provider" status suffices.	Carmel: The court must look to who actually furnishes/supplies services — Carmel provided personnel, equipment, administration, and thus furnished the service.	Affirmed: Court applied ordinary meaning of "furnish"/"provider," used factual analysis and found Carmel was the provider furnishing fire protection; Landowners failed to prove otherwise.

City of Carmel v. Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners, 874 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (prior appeal reversing trial court on fiscal-plan issue)
City of Carmel v. Certain Southwest Clay Tp. Annexation Territory Landowners, 868 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. 2007) (discussing annexation statutory framework and deference to municipality)
City of Fort Wayne v. Certain Southwest Annexation Area Landowners, 764 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. 2002) (standard of review and limited judicial role in annexation decisions)
Sales v. State, 723 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. 2000) (statutory construction principles and plain-meaning approach)
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (statutory interpretation and giving words their ordinary meaning)