Certain Northeast Annexation Area Landowners v. City of Fort Wayne

• Decision Date: 21 October 1993
• Docket Number: No. X-01-89,No. 02A03-9301-CV-15,No. 2,X-01-89,2,02A03-9301-CV-15
• Citation: 622 N.E.2d 548
• Parties: In the Matter of Annexation Proposed by OrdinanceBeing an Ordinance Annexing Certain Territory Commonly Known as the Northeast Annexation Area to the City of Fort Wayne and to Include Same in Councilman's DistrictCERTAIN NORTHEAST ANNEXATION AREA LANDOWNERS, Appellants-Petitioners, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, Appellee-Respondent.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 548

622 N.E.2d 548

In the Matter of Annexation Proposed by Ordinance No X-01-89 Being an Ordinance Annexing Certain Territory Commonly Known as the Northeast Annexation Area to the City of Fort Wayne and to Include Same in Councilman's District No. 2 CERTAIN NORTHEAST ANNEXATION AREA LANDOWNERS, Appellants-Petitioners, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, Appellee-Respondent.

No. 02A03-9301-CV-15.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Third District.

Oct. 21, 1993.

Ralph R. Blume, Blume, Wyneken, Connelly, Jordan & Stucky, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

J. Timothy McCaulay, Corp. Counsel, City of Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, for appellee.

GARRARD, Judge.

Certain Northeast Area Landowners (Landowners) appeal a judgment dismissing their challenge to an annexation effort by the City of Fort Wayne (City).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

The record in this case reveals that on February 14, 1989, the Common Council of the City passed an ordinance annexing approximately 4,918 acres of land designated as the Northeast Annexation Area. Also on February 14, 1989, the Common Council passed Resolution No. R-06-89 which approved a written fiscal plan for the Northeast Annexation Area. The Mayor of the City approved and signed the ordinance and the resolution on February 15, 1989.

On April 25, 1989, Landowners filed a petition for remonstrance. On March 5, 1990, the trial court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of Landowners and an appeal ensued. This court reversed, finding that the trial court erred in its methodology for counting owners of land under IC 36-4-3-11. City of Fort Wayne v. Landowners (1990), Ind.App., 564 N.E.2d 297 (Garrard, J., dissenting) trans. denied. The trial court, acting on this reversal, dismissed Landowners' petition for remonstrance for lack of sufficient valid signatures. Landowners appeal this dismissal.

Landowners raise several issues on appeal which we restate and consolidate as: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Landowners' petition for remonstrance challenging the City's effort to acquire the Northeast Annexation Area.

DISCUSSION:

This case is primarily concerned with the finality of the appellate review process. Landowners in effect ask us to reopen a case that has been heard on the merits and subjected to full appellate review. Specifically, Landowners ask us to review the number of valid signatures stipulated to by the parties in the prior proceedings. We decline to do so.

In general, facts established at one stage of a proceeding, which were part of an issue on which judgment was entered and appeal taken, are unalterably and finally established as part of the law of the case and may not be relitigated at a subsequent stage. Cunningham v. Hiles (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 669, 676. Even if the judgment is erroneous, it nevertheless becomes the law of the case and thereafter binds the parties unless successfully challenged on appeal. Id. All issues decided directly or by implication in a prior decision are binding in all further portions of the same case. Id.

We note, however, that the law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice. State v. Lewis (1989), Ind., 543 N.E.2d 1116, 1118. This doctrine expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been previously decided. Id. A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. Id.

In the case at bar, the parties stipulated to the number of valid signatures collected in Landowners' effort to challenge the annexation. The stipulations before the trial court were as follows:

COURT: The matter we have today is a hearing on a motion in regards to the annexation issue of areas in St. Joseph Township. So, we'll show for the record ... that Joint Exhibits Number 1, 2 and 3 have been stipulated by both the parties in evidence. ¹ COURT: Anything else preliminarily before we start?

MR. McCAULAY: I think just to make clear for the record that two other stipulations are that the total number of valid signatures is 3859 and that the valid signatures do not represent 75% of the assessed value of the land.

COURT: All right. That's an agreed stipulation too, Mr. Blume, as I understand it?

MR. BLUME: 3859, Your Honor, yes.

COURT: All right.

MR. McCAULAY: And the 75--less than 75% of assessed--

COURT: And it does not include--or it does not represent 75% of the assessed value, so the issue is solely an issue of whether or not it represents more than 50% of the owners.

MR. BLUME: That's correct, Your Honor.

(R. 258, 262).

The trial court accepted the figure of 3,859 as the number of valid signatures applicable in this case and incorporated it into two of its orders.

On appeal, this court also expressly found that the parties stipulated that the total number of valid signatures on the remonstrance was 3,859. City of Fort...