Court Opinion

ID: 9739112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:08:57.167492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:10.060141
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I believe the case of Drake v. City of Fort Wayne (1989), Ind.App., 543 N.E.2d 1145 discussed in the majority opinion was decided correctly. I also believe the trial court in this case correctly followed Drake and the statute involved.
To say that it is not necessary for the City to set forth its capability to provide services within the proposed annexation in its resolution and plan, but only to do so in the evidence presented before the court in the hearing on the remonstrance, leaves the remonstrators without adequate information upon which to base their case.
The majority observes that if the City were required to set forth all of this information within its resolution and plan, there would be no necessity for an evidentiary hearing. I cannot agree with this observation. It certainly would be appropriate for remonstrators to present evidence that the proposals in the City's plan were unrealistic and the statements in the plan concerning topography, ete. were not accurate. For example, engineers could be called as expert witnesses to demonstrate that the City's presumptions on topography were grossly in error.
I do not perceive it to be an unconscionable burden upon the City to set forth all of the statutory requirements in its resolution and plan. Absent this information, the residents of the proposed annexation area can engage only in a guessing game as to what the City actually is proposing prior to the presentation of evidence at the hearing on the remonstrance.
I would affirm the trial court.