Kite v. Curlin
Citation | 139 N.E.3d 1113 |
Decision Date | 30 December 2019 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-MI-51 |
Parties | Donald B. KITE, Sr., Appellant-Petitioner, v. Alexandra CURLIN, Appellee-Respondent. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant: William R. Groth, Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, Kristina Frey, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Robin C. Clay, Curlin & Clay Law Association of Attorneys, Indianapolis, Indiana, Robin A. Hall, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] Donald B. Kite, Sr. ("Kite") appeals the order of the Marion Circuit Court denying his petition for an election contest in which he claimed that Alexandra Curlin ("Curlin") was ineligible to hold the seat on the school board to which she was elected. On appeal, Kite claims that Curlin does not reside in the district she was elected to represent and is therefore statutorily ineligible for the school board seat. Curlin argues that her residency, and therefore her ineligibility, was discoverable prior to the election and that Kite's post-election challenge is untimely. Because we agree with Kite that Curlin continues to be ineligible for the seat she holds, we reverse and remand.
[2] In 2015, the school board ("School Board") of the Metropolitan School District of Washington Township ("MSDWT") adopted a plan (the "2015 Plan") regarding the organization and composition of the School Board. The 2015 Plan provided that two members of the School Board would be elected at-large, but "preserve[d] the current and historical practice of board members elected by and representing all MSDWT voters without concentration of a majority of the Board from just one geographical area (residence district)[.]" Ex. Vol., Joint Ex. 1, p. 2. The 2015 Plan also provided that any candidate for a seat representing a residence district must have lived in that district "for a period of time in excess of one (1) year prior to the date of the general election on which the candidate's name appears on the ballot for election[.]" Id. at p. 3–4.
[3] MSDWT is divided into three geographic residence districts. Areas south of 75th Street between Spring Mill Road and College Avenue are within MSDWT Residence District 1, and areas north of 75th Street between Spring Mill Road and College Avenue are within MSDWT Residence District 2. The following diagram is based on the exhibits submitted by the parties and is offered as a visual aid to the reader:
See Ex. Vol., Petitioner's Ex. B. It is undisputed that Kite has lived in District 2 for more than one year prior to the election at issue. Curlin resides at 7431 North Meridian Street, which is between Spring Mill Road and College Avenue, but three houses south of 75th Street. It is undisputed that Curlin therefore resides in District 1.
[4] Kite was the incumbent representing District 2. On August 23, 2018, Curlin filed a "Petition of Nomination and Consent for School Board Office Elected in 2018," State Form CAN-34, so that she could run against Kite for the seat representing District 2. Id ., Joint Ex. 6. In this form, Curlin correctly listed her address as 7431 North Meridian Street. Although she listed her correct address, which lies within District 1, she indicated that she was seeking the seat representing District 2. In this form, Curlin incorrectly certified that she "meet[s] all qualifications for this office, including residency requirements [.]" Id. (emphasis added).
[5] The election was held on November 6, 2018. Curlin received 14,723 votes, and Kite received 13,946 votes. The election results were certified, and Kite did not request a recount. However, the day after the election, while the votes were still being counted, Kite was informed that Curlin did not live in District 2. Accordingly, on November 15, 2018, nine days after the election, Kite filed a verified petition to contest the election on grounds that Curlin filed for and sought the District 2 seat even though she lived in District 1. Kite's petition claimed that Curlin was therefore ineligible to run for election or be seated as a District 2 School Board member, because she did not meet the residency requirement.
[6] The trial court held a hearing on Kite's petition on December 11, 2018. A week later, pursuant to Kite's request under Trial Rule 52, the trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law providing in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClernon v. State
...to school, soccer practice, and medical appointments? Can we classify her as someone who operates her vehicle "on a regular basis"?[139 N.E.3d 1113 [25] The majority dismisses the holdings from Whatley v. Zatecky , 833 F.3d 762 (7th Cir. 2016), and Doe v. Snyder , 101 F.Supp.3d 672 (E.D. Mi......
-
Allsup v. Swalls-Thompson
...We have explained that "failure to meet a residency requirement is not a mere formal or technical objection." Kite v. Curlin , 139 N.E.3d 1113, 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. [17] Swalls-Thompson requested that the trial court issue findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuan......