Numerous freeholders petitioned the trial court to establish the Lake of the Woods of Marshall County Conservancy District which was met with remonstrators who sought dismissal. The trial court dismissed the petition after finding the remonstrators met statutory signature requirements. The Petitioners appealed, challenging whether the court clearly erred in dismissing the petition.
Petitioners filed the district petition on August 11, 2023, describing the territory as all parcels with frontage on Lake of the Woods or associated channels, and stating that the purposes for the proposed conversancy district was for water quality, drainage, and flood control. The Marshall Auditor reported 152 petitioner signatures out of 270 freeholders, reflecting 56.3%, and the court found prima facie sufficiency and referred the matter to the Natural Resources Commission. The Commission recommended establishment upon amendment to add a purpose and to include a detailed boundary map proving contiguity of the district. The remonstrators filed an opposition petition with 197 noted signatures, followed by Auditor scrutiny of “questionable” signatures. In response, the Petitioners filed an amended petition with a map and challenged the sufficiency of opposition signatures, including purported revocations and sought an updated Auditor accounting.
The Auditor updated the signatures after reviewing a third-party spreadsheet and stated petitioner support would not drop below 50% even removing some names. At hearing, the parties agreed the dispositive issue was whether the remonstrators had at least 51% of freeholder signatures.
The trial court found that (A) petitioners failed to sufficiently establish district boundaries, and their spreadsheets and vague map were inadequate to show which properties had qualifying frontage; (B) credited remonstrators’ evidence and found they had 140 valid signatures, equaling 51.85% of freeholders, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Upon review, the appellate court offered that findings and conclusions of the trial court will only be set aside only if clearly erroneous, with no reweighing of evidence. The court of appeals rejected petitioners’ framing of the opposition as a Trial Rule 12(B) motion and declined summary judgment review.
The Court of Appeals determined that under Indiana Code § 14-33-2-15(b), if a petition against establishment contains at least 51% of freeholders’ signatures, the court must dismiss the establishment petition. The Court further determined that Indiana Code § 14-33-2-3 defines how freeholds and signatures are counted, including limits on joint titles and treatment of corporate and municipal signatories.
Based on these statutes and principles, the Court of Appeals determined that the total freeholders numbered 270, requiring at least 138 opposition signatures to mandate dismissal. The Court reject Petitioners’ argument that starting from signatures favoring establishment and “switches” was irrelevant and held that the only question is whether opposition had at least 138 valid signatures. The Court also determined that the petitioners map was too vague for disputes over boundary expansions or restrictions leaving addresses and parcel inclusion unclear on appeal. Accordingly, the trial court, as factfinder, assessed boundaries and signatures, credited remonstrators’ evidence, and found 140 valid opposition signatures, exceeding the statutory minimum.
The Court of Appeal ultimately affirmed that the trial court did not clearly err in finding the opposition petition contained at least 51% of freeholder signatures and in dismissing the establishment petition under Indiana Code § 14-33-2-15(b).
James A.L. Buddenbaum is a partner in the law firm of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP with offices in Indianapolis and Lebanon, Indiana and has more than 35 years’ experience advising utilities, local government, healthcare providers and businesses on a variety of issues. The statements contained herein are matters of opinion and general information only and are not to be considered legal advice and should not be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact an attorney.