In re the Boundaries of The City of Hattiesburg
| Docket Number: | 2001-AN-00634-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-AN-00634-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-06-2003 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Legal description - Section 21-1-27 - Amendment of petition - M.R.C.P. 15 - Reasonableness of annexation - Constitutionality of section 21-1-27 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, P.J., Waller, Diaz and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Pittman, C.J. Dissenting Author : Easley, J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, J. McRae, P.J., Concurs in Result Only With Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: Municipal Boundaries & Annexation |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-22-2001 Appealed from: Lamar County Chancery Court Judge: Thomas Wright Teel Disposition: The special chancellor entered a final judgment granting the City of Hattiesburg’s petition to annex five (5) separate and non-contiguous parcels of land located in Lamar County. Case Number: 99-0427-Th |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In The Matter of the Extension of the Boundaries of The City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi: Lamar County, Mississippi , Lamar County Mississippi Board of Supervisors, Dennis Pierce, Inc., Dennis Pierce, Individually, Oak Grove Concerned Citizens, Inc., Thomas Price, Melva Maples, Craig Flanagan, David Cox, Bill Hover and Joyce Hover |
WILLIAM JENKINS GAMBLE, III
WILLIAM H. JONES
JACK B. WELDY
ANTHONY ALAN MOZINGO
JOSEPH EDGAR FILLINGANE |
||
| Appellee: | City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi | JERRY L. MILLS CHARLES E. LAWRENCE |
|
|
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 - Legal description - Section 21-1-27 - Amendment of petition - M.R.C.P. 15 - Reasonableness of annexation - Constitutionality of section 21-1-27 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City of Hattiesburg adopted an ordinance seeking to annex five separate and non-contiguous parcels of land lying wholly within adjoining Lamar County. When a complaint for annexation was filed in chancery court, the objectors filed a motion to dismiss. The City voluntarily dismissed its chancery court action. The City then re-adopted its annexation ordinance and filed a complaint for approval of the ordinance in chancery court. After much activity, the court granted Hattiesburg’s annexation petition. The objectors appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Legal description The City secured from the chancery court a dismissal of its first annexation petition due to an error in the legal description of the property. Upon adoption of a new ordinance with the corrected legal description as revealed by the objectors, the City filed its second annexation petition in court with yet to be revealed legal description errors still remaining. The objectors then filed a second dismissal based on the incorrect legal description. The objectors now argue that the legal description errors were so egregious, they deprived the chancery court of jurisdiction. Section 21-1-27 provides that when annexation is sought, the governing authorities shall pass an ordinance defining with certainty the territory proposed to be included in or excluded from the corporate limits and defining the entire boundary. In addition, technical deficiencies in a petition for annexation are amendable under M.R.C.P. 15. Therefore, when errors appear in the legal description of the territory proposed to be annexed and/or in the legal description of the entire boundary as changed after enlargement/annexation, such errors may be amended. Here, the objectors were not prejudiced by the amended legal descriptions since a correct map of the proposed areas for annexation was attached to both the original and the amended ordinances. Issue 2: Reasonableness of annexation Factors the court must consider in determining the reasonableness of a city's annexation request include the municipality’s need for expansion, whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city, the 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, the past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present residents, the impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the annexation area, the 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 in the foreseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy the benefits of proximity to the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes, and any other factors. Hattiesburg is growing largely in the direction of the area proposed for annexation. The fact that there may be usable vacant land within Hattiesburg is a moot point since there is no established number that must be reached to entitle a city automatically to expand. Hattiesburg's sewage and waste disposal system is superior to that of Lamar County. Hattiesburg clearly demonstrated its financial ability to afford the annexation. Hattiesburg has zoning regulations and building codes while Lamar County has only basic zoning tools and no building codes. The proposed area would benefit from city services. There are no natural barriers which impact the reasonableness of the annexation. Although past performance by Hattiesburg in the provision of city services to its present residents is lacking somewhat, this indicium at the very most weighs slightly against Hattiesburg since it must be weighed against the other strides the City has made. Although Lamar County voted overwhelmingly to remain a dry county while Hattiesburg is wet, an extension of possible alcohol sales into the proposed annexed area does not have the same impact as a first crossing which occurred in 1966. Even though the residents in the annexed area will have to pay more taxes, that is insufficient to defeat annexation. With regard to dilution of voting strength, the objectors presented no evidence of dilution nor did they offer any minority objector witnesses aggrieved by such a dilution. Since Hattiesburg is the economic engine for this region, residents and business owners in the annexed area would receive the City’s benefits without paying taxes if allowed to remain outside the city limits. Given these factors, the chancellor’s finding of reasonableness is affirmed. Issue 3: Constitutionality of section 21-1-27 The objectors argue that section 21-1-27, the annexation statute, is unconstitutionally vague, and that the "reasonableness" standard is elusive. The annexation statute merely provides for the procedures a city must undertake to annex property. The “reasonableness” standard is a creature of the judiciary rather than the legislature. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
