The trial court found, however, that 261 of the submitted signatures were precluded by waiver provisions contained in sewer agreements. Thus, the court concluded that landowners failed to submit the requisite 1,598 signatures and dismissed the remonstrance. Whether the city must present evidence that landowners connected to the sewage works before waivers of the right to remonstrate are considered valid. Whether the court erred in admitting conclusion testimony from witness Brad Hall. II.Whether the trial court erroneously dismissed landowners' complaint for declaratory judgment.
Landowners contend the trial court erred in dismissing their remonstrance.
When landowners challenge the propriety of annexation, the trial court is charged with first determining whether the remonstrance contains the necessary signatures. Should the remonstrance be found insufficient, then the trial court is without subject matter jurisdiction over the action and cannot proceed further. The trial court is not required to make special findings in an annexation proceeding. When the court voluntarily enters findings, as in the present case, the reviewing court considers the case as decided by a general judgment by partial findings. The special findings control only as to the issues they cover.