Appellants/Remonstrators Gary West, et al., (“Appellants”) appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment and its judgment in favor of Appellee/Respondent the City of Princeton. Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their summary judgment motion because Princeton allegedly failed to strictly comply with the relevant notice statute. Moreover, Appellants contend that the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous in several respects.
Conclusion (slip op. at 12): The trial court’s denial of Appellants’ motion for summary judgment is affirmed, and the judgment of the trial court in favor of Princeton is affirmed.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 5-6): The clear purpose of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-2.2 is to put the affected landowners on notice of the municipality’s proposed annexation of their land and its consequences. It follows, then, that the detailed summary need only be detailed enough to further that purpose. Here, the detailed summary has done so . . . Appellants make no claim that they were denied access to the full fiscal plan, nor do they explain how, even if that were the case, such a denial would have affected their knowledge of the proposed annexation or their opportunity to be heard.