Oxford Asset Partners, LLC v. City of Oxford,et al.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-01712-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 08-07-2007 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-18-2007 Opinion Author: WALLER, P.J. Holding: AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Constitutionality of statute - H.B. 1671 - Miss. Const. Article IV, Sections 87 & 90 - Section 21-37-23 - Section 21-37-25 - Section 21-17-1 - Section 31-7-13 - Section 1-3-77 Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., DIAZ, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON, GRAVES, DICKINSON, RANDOLPH AND LAMAR, JJ. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-21-2006 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Henry L. Lackey Disposition: Dismissal of Appellant's Request for a Declaratory Judgment & from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellee Case Number: L06-185 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | OXFORD ASSET PARTNERS, LLC |
DANNY A. DRAKE
DAVID W. MOCKBEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | CITY OF OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI AND STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | PAUL B. WATKINS, JR. POPE S. MALLETTE | ||
| Appellee #2: | MARY JO WOODS | |||
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: | Constitutionality of statute - H.B. 1671 - Miss. Const. Article IV, Sections 87 & 90 - Section 21-37-23 - Section 21-37-25 - Section 21-17-1 - Section 31-7-13 - Section 1-3-77 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Oxford solicited proposals to increase the availability of parking in downtown Oxford. After receiving three proposals, the City formed a committee to consider two of the three proposals, both of which contemplated the City conveying land to a private developer who would build a parking garage and a hotel. The developer would then convey the parking garage back to the City. Following the withdrawal of one proposal, the City authorized the negotiation of a non-binding letter of intent with the remaining developer, Craigside Leasing Corporation. In exchange for the air and development rights to operate a hotel above the parking garage, Craigside would construct and then re-convey the parking garage to the City. The City executed a non-binding Preliminary Development Agreement with Craigside. The Attorney General issued an opinion finding that the construction of such a facility under the proposed agreement would violate existing general laws. In an attempt to address the Attorney General’s opinion, two representatives introduced a bill authorizing the City to negotiate with any public or private actor for the construction or expansion of municipal parking facilities in exchange for air and development rights. The bill, H.B. 1671, was signed into law on April 5, 2006. In May of 2006, Oxford Asset Partners, LLC filed a complaint against the City arguing that H.B. 1671 violates Article IV, Sections 87 and 90 of the Mississippi Constitution. The trial judge dismissed Oxford Asset’s request for declaratory judgment and granted summary judgment to the City. Oxford Asset appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Oxford Asset argues that H.B. 1671 violates Article IV, Section 87 of the Mississippi Constitution by suspending multiple general laws for the benefit of a private entity and violates Article IV, Section 90 by vacating public property in the form of air and development rights above a publicly owned parking garage. In order for a private law to offend the second clause of Section 87, the private law must suspend a general law or laws for the benefit of an individual or private corporation or association. Both Oxford Asset and the City concede that H.B. 1671 suspends general laws. H.B. 1671 expressly renders sections 21-37-23, 21-37-25, 21-17-1, and 31-7-13 of the Mississippi Code inapplicable. In determining the beneficiary of private or local laws, the Court considers to whom the legislation is directed or applied and whether the aim or thrust of the bill is to benefit the public. H.B. 1671 applies to the City and the aim of the bill is to increase the availability of public parking for the City of Oxford. Additionally, the bill is aimed at expanding parking facilities in order to meet the needs and expectations of the community. Accordingly, H.B. 1671 benefits the City of Oxford and the benefit to any private party is indirect. The Legislature may suspend a general law by a private law that concerns the same subject matter so long as the object and purpose of each act is consistent with the other and where the differences between them are primarily procedural and minor. Since the aim of H.B. 1671 is to benefit the public by facilitating the construction or acquisition of municipal parking facilities, the special law furthers the same purposes as the general law. House Bill 1671, Section 2, expressly renders section 21-37-23 of the Mississippi Code inapplicable. In general, section 21-37-23 authorizes a municipality to establish and operate a municipal parking facility, while H.B. 1671 both authorizes and sets forth means by which such a facility may be acquired. Eventually, in direct contrast to the prohibition in section 21-37-23, H.B. 1671 would allow a commercial enterprise to be on the same property as a municipal parking facility. However, permitting a commercial enterprise to occupy the same grounds as a municipal parking facility is not such a major deviation from section 21-37-23 as to render H.B. 1671 invalid. House Bill 1671, Section 2, also eliminates procedural safeguards for the establishment of a municipal parking facility contained in section 21-37-25 of the Mississippi Code. These requirements include adoption of an ordinance declaring the necessity of a parking facility, publication of notice, a public hearing on the matter, and appellate procedures for aggrieved citizens. However, the denial of a right to notice, hearings, and even an election are primarily procedural and minor. While Section 2 of H.B. 1671 is not invalid, the last sentences of Sections 3 and 4 of H.B. 1671 do not pass constitutional scrutiny. The last sentence of Section 3 in H.B. 1671 relieves the City from compliance with section 21-17-1 of the Mississippi Code which sets forth a specific manner in which municipal real property may be sold, conveyed, or leased. House Bill 1671 seeks to relieve the City from not only the advertisement and bidding requirements, but also from the appraisal requirements of section 21-17-1(2)(b)(i) which ensure that fair market price is obtained for the property. House Bill 1671 strays too far from the general law of section 21-17-1 by failing to ensure that the consideration received for the conveyance of municipal property is at least equivalent to fair market value. H.B. 1671 lacks any objective safeguards to ensure that the parking facility received by the City is at least equivalent to the fair market value of the air and development rights conveyed by the City. Allowing private legislation to avoid significant safeguards opens the door for potential abuse and waste of public property. The last sentence of Section 4 in H.B. 1671 relieves the City from compliance with section 31-7-13 of the Mississippi Code, which contains the general bid requirements for construction contracts. Because the protections afforded through bidding requirements are so great, H.B. 1671's noncompliance with such requirements is not primarily procedural and minor. While H.B. 1671 furthers the same object and purpose as the general laws, the differences between H.B. 1671 and sections 21-17-1 and 31-7-13 of the Mississippi Code are substantive and major. Section 1-3-77 requires that if any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or any part of an act be found unconstitutional, the remaining portions shall remain in effect. Therefore, the last sentences of Sections 3 and 4 of House Bill 1671 are severed from the bill. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
