In re the Boundaries of the City of Clinton
| Docket Number: | 2004-AN-01436-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-26-2006 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Vacated and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Standing - Frivolous appeal - M.R.A.P. 46(d) - Notice of hearing - Section 21-1-31 - Section 21-1-15 - Proof of service by affidavit - M.R.C.P. 4(f) - Sufficiency of evidence - Personal bias Judge(s) Concurring: Cobb, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Smith, C.J., and Diaz, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-16-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Stuart Robinson Disposition: The chancellor entered a final judgment approving the City of Clinton’s annexation plan. Case Number: G-2003-15 |
|
| Note: | Motion to Strike filed by the City of Clinton is denied. Hales' Motion For Sanctions imposed against the City of Clinton is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | David Weeks, Myra Jane Hale, Lucas L. Hale, R. Mitchell Hale, and Suzyn B. Hale, d/b/a Hale Fireworks, LLC |
T. JACKSON LYONS, JOHN R. REEVES, JOHN JUSTIN KING |
||
| Appellee: | City of Clinton, Mississippi | JERRY L. MILLS, KENNETH R. DREHER |
|
|
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 - Standing - Frivolous appeal - M.R.A.P. 46(d) - Notice of hearing - Section 21-1-31 - Section 21-1-15 - Proof of service by affidavit - M.R.C.P. 4(f) - Sufficiency of evidence - Personal bias |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City of Clinton filed a complaint in the nature of a petition for the annexation of certain areas outside the city limits of Clinton. The chancellor entered a final judgment approving the City of Clinton’s annexation plan. A number of objectors appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standing The City of Clinton argues that members of the Hale family d/b/a Hale Fireworks, L.L.C. have no standing to participate in this appeal. The Hale family was not among the original objectors because they assert they never had notice of the hearing and, thus, were absent from the proceedings in chancery court. Though not parties to the original action, the Hales are still allowed to appeal the approval of annexation if their property rights were adjudicated by the chancellor’s decision. Because the trade name of Hale Fireworks was included after the names of individual members of the Hale family, the City argues the real party in interest is the company - which has no property in Mississippi and thus may lack standing to challenge the annexation decision. However, members of the Hale family have presented affidavits and evidence, such as certified warranty deeds, that they, and not their business, are landowners in the part of the area approved for annexation by the chancery court. Therefore, the City’s contention that members of the Hale family are without standing to challenge the annexation is without merit. The Hale objectors that the City be sanctioned for attempting to remove them from this appeal due to a lack of standing. While the City’s argument ultimately was not successful, it cannot be classified as frivolous and does not warrant sanctions under M.R.A.P. 46(d). Issue 2: Notice of hearing The objectors argue that the chancery court was without jurisdiction to hear the case because proper notice was not given. Section 21-1-31 provides notice of a hearing on a proposed area of annexation must be given in the same way notice is given under section 21-1-15 for the creation of municipal corporations. Section 21-1-15 requires notice be published in a newspaper as well as the posting of such notice in public places. M.R.C.P. 4(f) provides that a person, other than a sheriff, may make proof of service by affidavit. In the instant case, the City of Clinton did just that. The City filed the affidavit of Richard Broome as proof that notice had been properly provided. In his affidavit, Broome stated under oath the locations where he had posted copies of the notice of the hearing. Additionally, a copy of the notice published in the Clarion-Ledger was filed along with the sworn statement of a Clarion-Ledger employee verifying the authenticity of the notice and dates of its publication. The chancellor did not commit manifest error by allowing the detailed affidavit of Richard Broome to constitute adequate proof of notice. Issue 3: Sufficiency of evidence The objectors argue that the chancellor failed to consider and weigh the twelve indicia of reasonableness. A chancellor must consider all twelve of the factors in order to determine whether the annexation is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. In the instant case, the chancellor’s verbal ruling and written judgment contain no reference to the twelve indicia of reasonableness in his decision to allow the annexation. Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether substantial evidence supports the chancellor’s reasoning and ruling that the annexation should have been granted. Issue 4: Personal bias The objectors argue that the chancellor erred by allowing personal bias to inappropriately influence his decision. While the chancellor did make the statement in his ruling that the City of Clinton had proven its case, his statement that the annexed area would fare better as a part of the City of Clinton and not the City of Jackson is troubling. On remand, the chancellor should base his decision on the twelve indicia of reasonableness and ultimately on the totality of the circumstances - not personal opinion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
