Town of Zionsville, Indiana v. Town of Whitestown, Indiana, and Angel Badillo
2016 Ind. LEXIS 31
| Ind. | 2016Background
- In 2010 Zionsville reorganized under the Government Modernization Act (GMA) to absorb unincorporated Eagle and all of Union Townships; the reorganization document designated the result as the Town of Zionsville and transferred township powers to it.
- In April–May 2014 Zionsville and Perry Township adopted a plan to reorganize (the 2014 Zionsville–Perry Reorganization) to be submitted to voters; Whitestown was not a participant.
- Whitestown introduced annexation ordinances (April 22, 2014) seeking territory that overlapped areas included in Zionsville’s 2010 and proposed 2014 reorganizations; Whitestown also had earlier annexation activity (2013) unrelated to this suit.
- Whitestown sued to invalidate the 2014 reorganization and to preserve its right to annex; Zionsville counterclaimed to bar Whitestown’s annexations and to enforce the reorganization. Trial court granted summary judgment for Whitestown (invalidating the 2014 plan and allowing annexations); Court of Appeals reversed; transfer to Indiana Supreme Court followed.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo and held: Zionsville, as reorganized in 2010 with transferred township powers, could reorganize with Perry Township under the GMA; the 2014 reorganization satisfied the adjacency and voting-bloc rules; Whitestown cannot complete annexations of territory that lies within Zionsville as a result of completed reorganizations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Whitestown) | Defendant's Argument (Zionsville) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zionsville (post-2010) may reorganize with Perry Township under the GMA | Zionsville lacks township status/powers because it is a municipality; cannot use a small isolated parcel to meet adjacency | 2010 plan transferred township powers to Zionsville, including reorganize power; small parcel gives required adjacency | Zionsville may exercise transferred township powers and may reorganize with Perry Township; adjacency satisfied by >150 ft parcel |
| Whether the 2014 reorganization's votingBlocs complied with GMA tally rules | Voting blocs were defective; overlapping 2010 reorganized units required separate tallies | Only two reorganizing units in 2014 (Perry and reorganized Zionsville); no overlapping tally rule applies | Voting procedures were adequate for the 2014 reorganization under the applicable GMA provision |
| Whether Whitestown could proceed with annexations that overlap territory in Zionsville’s 2010 or 2014 reorganizations | Whitestown had "first-in-time" jurisdiction because it introduced annexation ordinances April 22, 2014 | Zionsville and Perry initiated reorganization earlier by statutory resolution; GMA’s initiation controls; municipality status of reorganized Zionsville shields territory from annexation | Reorganization was initiated first-in-time; Whitestown may not complete annexations of territory within reorganized Zionsville |
| Whether reorganized Zionsville’s exercise of township powers changes its municipal status for annexation protections | Reorganized entity acting as township allows Whitestown to annex (citing lapse of statutory pause) | Zionsville remains a municipality; territory within reorganized Zionsville falls within its corporate boundaries and is protected from annexation by Ind. Code § 36‑4‑3‑2 | Exercise of township powers does not strip municipal status; annexation prohibited once reorganization implemented |
Key Cases Cited
- Kole v. Faultless, 963 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. 2012) (interpreting GMA broadly; supports nontraditional reorganized entities exercising combined powers)
- Brenwick Assocs., LLC v. Boone Cty. Redev. Comm'n., 889 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. 2008) (explains first-in-time jurisdictional rule)
- Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 2006) (de novo review of pure legal issues on appeal)
- Town of Dyer v. Town of St. John, 919 N.E.2d 1196 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (discusses municipal contiguity and traditional notions of municipal unity)