City of D'Iberville v. City of Biloxi
| Docket Number: | 2002-AN-01075-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2004 Opinion Author: Carlson, J. Holding: Affirmed on Direct Appeal and Cross-Appeal |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Prior jurisdiction - Reasonableness of annexation Judge(s) Concurring: Smith and Waller, P.JJ., Cobb, Graves and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Pittman, C.J., and Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Easley, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-09-2002 Appealed from: Harrison County Chancery Court Judge: J. Shannon Clark Disposition: After a trial was held on the consolidated actions, the special chancellor awarded a portion of the proposed annexation area (PAA) to each city, including the inclusion area to Biloxi. The remainder of the PAA was denied to both cities. Case Number: C2402-99-1130 |
|
| Note: | nature of case: MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Enlargement and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the City of D'Iberville, Mississippi and the City of Biloxi, Mississippi: City of D'Iberville, Mississippi |
JERRY L. MILLS
WALTER L. NIXON, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | City of Biloxi, Mississippi | JAMES L. CARROLL ELIZABETH JANE HICKS MARY LARGENT PURVIS |
|
|
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 - Prior jurisdiction - Reasonableness of annexation |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Harrison County consolidated for hearing three separate petitions: (1) a petition for annexation filed by the City of D’Iberville; (2) a petition for annexation for the exact same area filed by the City of Biloxi; and (3) a petition for inclusion into Biloxi of a smaller area within the proposed annexation area filed by residents of this smaller area. The special chancellor awarded a portion of the proposed annexation area to each city, including the inclusion area to Biloxi. The remainder of the PAA was denied to both cities. Both cities appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Prior jurisdiction D’Iberville argues that although the three petitions were consolidated for trial, its petition was filed first and was therefore entitled to priority consideration by the chancellor. D’Iberville is procedurally barred from raising this issue on appeal because the issue was not raised before the trial court. In addition, where there is competition among multiple municipalities for the same land, it is essential that a chancellor evaluate the competing interests of the other city or cities when considering the twelve indicia in the totality of the circumstances. It is certainly reasonable for a chancellor to consolidate competing petitions for one trial given the considerable expense and time involved in each annexation case. Therefore, to the extent that prior cases have recognized and applied the prior jurisdiction doctrine as it relates to annexation litigation, those cases are to that limited extent overruled. Issue 2: Reasonableness of decision Both cities argue that the chancellor’s decision that it is not reasonable for either city to annex a certain portion of the PAA is erroneous. D’Iberville has demonstrated its need for expansion in various ways. Because D’Iberville receives no direct income from the gaming industry, additional land is necessary to accommodate residential and commercial growth. However, this need is satisfied by the area given to D’Iberville and not the entire PAA. Biloxi also has shown a need to enlarge its borders. Although Biloxi’s ability to expand is limited due to its location, the area given to Biloxi is sufficient to meet its needs. The D’Iberville area is clearly a path of growth for D’Iberville and Biloxi is growing toward the Biloxi area. Neither city has demonstrated a need to expand beyond those areas. Potential health hazards were not significant in the reduced area. That area is mostly rural and does not present the potential health hazards as the more populated areas of the D’Iberville and Biloxi areas. Both cities are in good financial condition and have the ability to keep their commitments, particularly with the reduction in the area annexed. The need for zoning in the area does not have any significant impact on either annexation. While there has been substantial population growth in the PAA, the majority of that growth has been immediately adjacent to the city limits of D’Iberville and Biloxi. The area reduced from the PAA consists largely of undeveloped area; and therefore, the trends do not apply to that area. That Biloxi is bigger and has a larger budget does not mean that the services D’Iberville could provide are insufficient. The only natural barrier in either of the areas is the Tchoutacabouffa River. However, since the river has already been bridged for traffic purposes, the river is not a factor. Although D’Iberville has never before annexed territory, the services provided to D’Iberville’s current residents provide proof of its abilities. The services that Biloxi has undertaken to provide through its previous annexation are currently on schedule. The residents and property owners of the areas will receive valuable services in return for the additional taxes. These services include police protection, fire protection, public works, and improved street and drainage maintenance, paving of streets, street lighting, administration of municipal level code enforcement, and municipal level planning and zoning. Also, water and sewer needs will be extended where necessary and economically feasible. There would be no impact on the voting strength of protected minorities. While residents of the PAA do receive some benefit by their proximity to the respective cities, it is no more or less than any other citizen might receive as a result of living in close proximity to a city. To permit annexation of the entire area by either municipality would effectively block any future annexation efforts of the other. Because the remaining area is undeveloped, the chancellor’s decision to deny annexation of this area to both cities is well supported by the evidence and is reasonable. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
