Certain Tell City Annexation Territory Landowners v. Tell City, Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 146
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Tell City adopted an ordinance proposing annexation of ~1,776 acres; adjacent landowners filed a remonstrance petition to block the annexation under Ind. Code § 36-4-3-11.
- The petition allocated a page per parcel listing parcel info, the owner name as on the tax duplicate, a printed-name line, a signature line, and a date line; 438 owners signed.
- The trial court ordered the county auditor to compare petition entries to the tax duplicate and report which signatures complied with the statute. The auditor rejected 145 signatures for not "exactly" matching tax-duplicate names.
- The auditor’s revised schedule concluded the petition lacked sufficient owners (accepted signatures fell below the 65% owner threshold and below 75% assessed-value threshold). Parties disputed parcel counts (including whether 48 state parcels counted as one) and the auditor’s matching standard.
- The trial court accepted the auditor’s strict matching approach and dismissed the remonstrance for lack of standing. The landowners appealed, arguing the court added an impermissible exact-match requirement and improperly rejected slightly deviant signatures and representative signers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Property Owners) | Defendant's Argument (Tell City / Auditor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 36-4-3-11(b) requires signatures to exactly match tax-duplicate names | The statute requires only prima facie identification via tax-duplicate names; exact-match is not required; printed names and slight variations suffice | Auditor’s interpretation entitled to deference; non-exact matches and unclear representative signatures should be invalidated | Court held statute does not require exact-match; matching may be established via typed/printed name or reasonable variation; auditor’s stricter rule was improper |
| Whether minor deviations (nicknames, initials, missing titles) invalidate signatures | Minor deviations still identify owner; controlling question is identity, not formality | Deviations create ambiguity; burden on petitioners to prove validity | Court held minor deviations permissible where identity is clear; precedent supports counting such signatures |
| Whether trustee or corporate representative signatures are invalid absent explicit indication of authority on face of petition | Representative signatures can be valid if identity of owner and signer is clear; statute does not mandate form of signature or proof of authority on the face of petition | Auditor/City argued representative must show authority on petition; otherwise signature may be invalid | Court did not decide broad rule but found enough representative signers were proven at hearing; did not require strict on-face proof of authority for all such signers |
| Whether petition contained sufficient valid signatures for standing after correcting auditor’s rejections and parcel-count disputes | Counting names printed or signed and allowing minor variations yields ≥65% of owners (court recalculated at least 416 valid signatures) | City argued auditor’s counts and parcel totals should stand; also noted some withdrawals | Court reversed: petition contained sufficient qualifying signatures for standing; remanded for merits proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Boonville v. Am. Cold Storage, 950 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Ct. App.) (tax duplicate is prima facie evidence of ownership for remonstrance review)
- Am. Cold Storage v. City of Boonville, 977 N.E.2d 19 (Ind. Ct. App.) (annexation remonstrance standing principles and parcel-count issues)
- Wherry v. Backelman, 130 N.E.2d 777 (Ind. Ct. App.) (minor name variations on petitions are acceptable where identity is clear)
- Marshall Cty. Tax Awareness Comm. v. Quivey, 780 N.E.2d 380 (Ind.) (imperfect identification on petitions may be counted if signer is identifiable and authorized)
- Gibson v. State, 661 N.E.2d 865 (Ind. Ct. App.) (initials or marks can constitute a legal signature)
- Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind.) (courts may not add requirements to statutes)
- Town of Whitestown v. Rural Perry Twp. Landowners, 40 N.E.3d 916 (Ind. Ct. App.) (rules of statutory interpretation applied to annexation/remonstrance statutes)