Pinewild residents were in court again Monday, asking Senior Resident Superior Court Judge James M. Webb to tell them what municipal ordinances will or won't apply to their gated community after annexation.

Their petition asks the Superior Court for what is called a declaratory judgment. Attorneys for the village opposed it and filed a motion asking Webb to dismiss it. Bobby Sullivan and Michael Newman appeared for the village of Pinehurst with a motion to dismiss.

Because both sides had submitted so much material for Webb to consider, a ruling was not expected immediately.

Pinehurst adopted an ordinance to annex Pinewild in 2007. A series of legal efforts to block or delay annexation followed. After being denied in Superior Court, opponents appealed and were subsequently denied by the N.C. Court of Appeals. They asked for a rehearing, but that was refused.

The only remaining avenue would be asking the N.C. Supreme Court for a discretionary review, as the appeals court judges had ruled unanimously.

Separately, other cases are asking a federal court to declare this annexation a "taking" that, under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, would require payment of compensation.

In this latest move, Pinewild residents claim that the village of Pinehurst won't be able to apply all its laws inside a private, gated community -- as state law requires -- so they wanted Webb to declare which will and which won't.

Sullivan cited the state law that says, "after the effective date of the annexation ordinance, the territory and its citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in such municipality"

He offered a number of grounds for dismissal. In the first place, Sullivan said, the petition fails to state a claim like the allegation that Pinehurst is treating Pinewild differently from other annexed areas. He then argued that this petition is not a proper use for a declaratory judgment. They are for situations where unavoidable damages will result, he said.

"Plaintiffs don't allege some specific regulation that would cause them immediate harm that they need a ruling to avoid," Sullivan said. "There is no dispute that this would heal."

Gene Boyce, of Raleigh, and his son Dan, represented the Pinewild residents, along with Pinehurst attorney Lydia Boesch, herself a Pinewild resident.

"I almost have to sound overly dramatic," Gene Boyce said. "Yes, there is a threat. After 20 years of threatening to do something, the village entered an ordinance in 2007. This is not a simple case covered in any other lawsuit. It has grown from an annexation case to a question of law and constitutionality."

Boyce said all they are asking the court is, "What are our rights?"

Like Sullivan, Boyce cited the state statute requiring annexed territory " be subject to all" debts, laws, enforced elsewhere in the town.

"We are not asking the court to tell plaintiffs which do, and which do not," he said. "We are asking the court to say if the statute means what it says."

The issue, as it emerged over the course of the morning, appeared to revolve around the way to construe words like "all" and "apply." Pinehurst maintained that not all laws apply everywhere, pointing out that a law against rock quarries in town would not apply to areas where there were no such quarries.

City ordinances applicable to public streets would have no application in Pinewild, as the private gated community has no public streets. All its streets are private and that would not change after annexation, Sullivan contends.

There are 1,400 residents and 742 homes in Pinewild, Boyce said. The term used to describe property rights for 40 or 50 years by the courts of the land has been to picture them as "a bundle of sticks," he said.

"The right to privacy and exclusivity is the most important stick in the bundle of property rights," Boyce said. "We do not challenge annexation. They are not going to apply all the laws. They are going to pick and choose."

Some ordinances conflict with existing agreements Pinewild residents have made, he said. Boyce handed up a color-coded graph of conflicts he contend exist between what the town says and what plaintiffs say.

Pinehurst contends there is no real controversy about a question of law, Boyce said -- but argues the only real issue here is, "whether or not plaintiffs are entitled to know what laws apply to them and which ones will not."

He quoted comments from Pinehurst officials saying some ordinances would not apply.

The real value of property owned by Pinewild residents is at risk here, Boyce contends. He said they need a declaratory judgment to settle things that affect how much their homes are worth, which he contended is adversely affected by the threatened annexation.

"Plaintiffs are entitled to the right to know with reasonable certainty the nature and extent of their legal and constitutional rights personally, their property rights and what their obligations are under the laws of North Carolina and ordinances of their local governments," he said.

Sullivan responded that annexation won't change any property rights whatever. The idea that Pinewild streets will be open to public access after annexation is not at issue, he said.

"The gates will still be up," Sullivan said. "The roads will still be private."

Contact John Chappell at 783-5841 or by e-mail at jchappell@thepilot.com.