Niedfeldt v. Grand Oaks Communities, LLC
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02040-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-02040-SCT ; 2006-CA-02040-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-06-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Jurisdiction - Section 19-27-31 - Waiver of process Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-22-2006 Appealed from: Lafayette County Chancery Court Judge: Glenn Alderson Disposition: PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DENIED Case Number: 2006-27A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PHYLLIS W. NIEDFELDT, TRUSTEE FOR THE PHYLLIS W. NIEDFELDT LIVING TRUST |
THOMAS HENRY FREELAND,
JOYCE MARIE FREELAND |
|
|
| Appellee: | GRAND OAKS COMMUNITIES, LLC | S. DUKE GOZA, JOSHUA J. WIENER, DION JEFFERY SHANLEY | ||
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 - Jurisdiction - Section 19-27-31 - Waiver of process |
| Summary of the Facts: | In April 1995, Phyllis Niedfeldt purchased lot 94 and built a home on Majestic Oaks Drive in the Grand Oaks subdivision. The original developer of Grand Oaks was Grand Oaks, Inc. Originally, Grand Oaks was situated on approximately 400 acres and divided into 147 lots. However, in July 1995, Grand Oaks, Inc., purchased an additional 5.6 acres. The new plat contained a right-of-way or connector road between lots 142 and 143. The reason for the connector road stemmed from the possible future purchase of an additional 400 acres. In November 1995, Grand Oaks, Inc., filed a petition to alter and amend the original map and plat of Grand Oaks subdivision by enlarging and renumbering certain lots in accordance with section 19-27-31 in an effort to have the subdivision legally re-platted. Grand Oaks, Inc. named all persons directly interested and published a summons. Additionally, Grand Oaks, Inc. obtained waivers of process and entries of appearance from all affected parties, including Niedfeldt. Subsequently, the chancery court granted the petition. No amended plat was filed with the Lafayette County land records until a January 17, 2000, plat was filed in 2000, which depicted the right-of-way or connector road. In early fall of 2005, Niedfeldt saw that some excavation work had begun on the piece of land between lots 142 and 143. In 2006, Niedfeldt sought to prohibit Grand Oaks Communities, LLC from constructing a connector road in-between two lots situated within the cul-de-sac in which she lived. The chancery court denied Niedfeldt’s petition, and she appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jurisdiction Niedfeldt argues that several statements made by Grand Oaks, Inc., within their petition to amend the plat, and within other related documents, limited what the chancery court had the jurisdiction to approve. The chancery court has authority under section 19-27-31 to alter and vacate maps or plats, or any part thereof, under facts and circumstances coming within the statute (the statute requires publication which clearly states the objects and purposes of the petition). Niedfeldt argues that because the publication did not include language indicating that Grand Oaks, Inc. was attempting to carve out a 45-foot wide tract of land to be used as a right-of-way or connector road, the chancery court did not have jurisdiction to approve that specific change because the publication did not clearly state the objects and purposes of the petition as required by section 19-27-31. It stands to reason that because the statute requires the publication to clearly state the objects and purposes of the petition, the chancery court only has jurisdiction to amend a plat to the extent designated in the stated purpose. Anything outside or excluded from the stated purpose would not come under the facts and circumstances within the statute. Accordingly, the chancery court would not have the jurisdiction, as otherwise granted by section 19-27-31, to approve the changes. Because the 1996 chancery court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to include the proposed road now at issue, the judgment is reversed and rendered. GOC is enjoined from constructing a road in-between lots 142 and 143 as the original Grand Oaks plat neither included such a road, nor was the plat ever legally amended to allow such a road. Issue 2: Waiver of process Niedfeldt argues that she did not knowingly waive her right to contest the addition of the new right-of-way. To establish a waiver of right, an act or omission on the part of the one charged with the waiver fairly evidencing an intention permanently to surrender the right alleged to have been waived must be shown. Based upon uncontradicted testimony that Grand Oaks, Inc.’s attorney informed Niedfeldt of the addition of the road on the amended plat, the chancery court did not err in holding that Niedfeldt’s waiver was valid. However, jurisdiction over the subject matter of a proceeding cannot be conferred by consent or waiver. Thus, subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
