Pruitt v. Zoning Bd. of the City of Laurel
| Docket Number: | 2007-CP-01518-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-07-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Rezoning - Timeliness of appeal - Section 11-51-75 - Variance - Duty to prepare bill of exceptions Judge(s) Concurring: Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-31-2007 Appealed from: Jones County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED IN FAVOR OF APPELLEES Case Number: 2007-40-CV5 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2007-CP-01516-COA | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | JAMES PRUITT AND KARLOTTA PRUITT |
JAMES PRUITT (PRO SE),
KARLOTTA PRUITT (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | THE ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY COUNCIL OF LAUREL, MISSISSIPPI | DAVID M. RATCLIFF | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Rezoning - Timeliness of appeal - Section 11-51-75 - Variance - Duty to prepare bill of exceptions |
| Summary of the Facts: | James and Karlotta Pruitt filed a petition to rezone property that they owned from industrial and residential to commercial in hopes of locating a food trailer on the property, locating a restaurant in the building on the property, and using one parcel as a parking lot. The zoning board denied the Pruitts’ petition to rezone. The Pruitts appealed this decision to the city council which denied the Pruitts’ request for a hearing before the city council. The Pruitts filed an appeal in the circuit court. The zoning board and the city council filed a motion to dismiss the Pruitts’ appeal, alleging that the Pruitts failed to perfect their appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, and the Pruitts appeal. During the same time, the Pruitts also filed a request for a variance to a local ordinance which states that no privilege license shall be granted for the sale and/or consumption of beer and/or light wine when the structural premises is located within four hundred feet of a church or a school. The zoning board denied the Pruitts’ request for a variance based on the proximity of the Pruitts’ facility to the daycare center and community opposition. The Pruitts appealed to the city council which affirmed the zoning board’s decision. The Pruitts appealed to circuit court. The zoning board and the city council filed a motion to dismiss the action. The court dismissed the action, and the Pruitts appeal. The two cases were consolidated on appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Rezoning The zoning board and the city council argue that the Pruitts’ appeal was properly dismissed because the Pruitts failed to appeal within ten days of the city council meeting in which their petition to rezone was denied, and the Pruitts failed to file a bill of exceptions. As stated in section 11-51-75, an appeal from an adverse decision of the city council must be filed within ten days. The statute’s ten day time limit in which to appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. The record indicates that the city council denied the Pruitts’ petition to rezone on April 17, 2007. The Pruitts did not appeal to the circuit court until May 3, 2007, clearly more than ten days after the city council’s decision. Issue 2: Variance The zoning board and the city council argue that the circuit court properly dismissed the Pruitts’ appeal of the denial of their request for a variance because the Pruitts failed to file a bill of exceptions. When appealing to the circuit court from the decision of a municipal authority, the aggrieved party is responsible for preparing a bill of exceptions, which must be signed by the president of the city council. In its appellate capacity, the circuit court must limit its review of the evidence to the bill of exceptions. As the aggrieved party, it was the Pruitts’ duty to prepare the bill of exceptions. By not assuming their duty to file the bill of exceptions, the Pruitts failed to perfect their appeal. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
