City of Horn Lake v. City of Southaven
| Docket Number: | 2002-AN-00563-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-AN-00563-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Equitable estoppel - Section 21-1-7 - Judicial estoppel - Reasonableness Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, P.J., Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Pittman, C.J., and Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Cobb, J. Concurs in Result Only: McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-27-2002 Appealed from: DeSoto County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: Approved Southhaven's annexation of 310.24 acres. Case Number: 01-7-1056 L |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Enlargement and Extension of The Municipal Boundaries of the City of Southaven, Mississippi: City of Horn Lake |
BILLY C. CAMPBELL, JR.
WILLIAM AUSTIN BASKIN
JERRY R. WALLACE |
||
| Appellee: | City of Southaven, Mississippi | JERRY L. MILLS RONALD LOUIS TAYLOR |
|
|
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: | Annexation - Equitable estoppel - Section 21-1-7 - Judicial estoppel - Reasonableness |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Cities of Southaven and Horn Lake entered into an agreement whereby Southaven agreed not to annex the land west of Highway 51 and would not object to any future annexation filed by the City of Horn Lake to annex any lands west of the Wwst right of way of Interstate 55. After the agreement was made, Horn Lake annexed land lying to the south and west of Horn Lake. Southaven filed annexation proceedings in 2001 to acquire 310.24 acres which lie to the south and west of Southaven and are bisected by Highway 51. Horn Lake filed a motion to dismiss based on Southaven's stipulation that land west of the I-55 west right-of-way was in Horn Lake's path of growth, and its agreement that it would not object to Horn Lake's future annexation of land lying west of Highway 51. Southaven stated that it was not bound by the prior agreement because it had been entered into by a previous administration which ended its term of office on June 30, 2001. The court denied the motion to dismiss and found that Southaven's annexation of the area was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in the best interest of the owners. Horn Lake appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Equitable estoppel Southaven argues that neither equitable nor judicial estoppel apply because, where the act at issue is a discretionary one instead of a ministerial one, one city administration cannot bind succeeding city administrations. A party asserting equitable estoppel must prove a belief and reliance on some representation; change of position as a result of the representation; and detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position. Section 21-1-7, the statute conferring the power to annex, uses permissive language, not mandatory. This leads to the conclusion that the power to annex is a discretionary act, not a mandatory act. Therefore, the agreement would not be binding on successive administrations. The party claiming equitable estoppel against a governmental entity must show that estoppel is not inconsistent with the public interest, and this interest must be weighed and balanced against the equities of the circumstances. The public interest for Southaven to annex the land is without question, since it needs more land in an area where land is at a premium. Horn Lake had a window of opportunity to annex the land and it did not act. Weighing the equities, Horn Lake was harmed not by Southaven, but by its own negligence. Issue 2: Judicial estoppel Horn Lake argues that Southaven is judicially estopped from annexing the area because of the agreement. Judicial estoppel is applied in civil cases where there is multiple litigation between the same parties and one party knowingly asserts a position inconsistent with the position in the prior litigation. The copies of the agreement included in the record show only the signatures of representatives from Southaven and Horn Lake and do not show the signature of a judicial officer. Because Horn Lake has failed to show that the agreement was ever entered as a consent decree in a cause of action, judicial estoppel does not apply. Issue 3: Annexation The chancellor must consider a number of factors and determine whether under the totality of the circumstances the annexation is reasonable. These factors include the need to expand; the path of growth; potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal; the municipality's financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised; the need for zoning and overall planning; the need for municipal services; whether there are natural barriers between the city and the proposed annexation area; past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present residents; economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the proposed annexation area; impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups; whether the property owners and other inhabitants of the areas sought to be annexed have in the past, and the foreseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy economic and social benefits of the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes; and any other relevant factor. Southaven is a rapidly developing area with a population explosion. Although a portion of the land lay within Horn Lake’s path of growth, it also lay within Southaven’s path of growth. Since this land is undeveloped with no residents and no structures, there are no health hazards from sewage or waste disposal which would affect the question of annexation. The area contains only 310 acres and Southaven's proposed police and fire protection are more than adequate for the area. Since the area is totally unimproved and faces prospective development, it would benefit from Southaven’s regulations. Since the owners of the area indicated that they planned to make a large residential or commercial development, the area will need the municipal services which Southaven offers. The area immediately adjoins Southaven and is a portion of a tract of land, a part of which already is within Southaven’s city limits. Southaven’s past performance in providing services is beyond comparison. The landowners wished to be annexed by Southaven because the greater part of the tract of land had already been annexed by Southaven, and they did not want the tract to be divided by two governmental entities. Since no one lives in the area, the factor concerning minority voting strength has no relevance. The owners would enjoy a substantial increase in the value of the property. These findings that Southaven's proposed annexation was reasonable under all the circumstances were supported by substantial and credible evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
