Alias v. City of Oxford
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00301-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00301-COA ; 2009-CT-00301-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-14-2010 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Vacated and dismissed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Zoning variance - Jurisdiction - Timeliness of appeal - Section 11-51-75 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Maxwell, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., dissents with separate written opinion. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment; Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2008 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Elliott Disposition: AFFIRMED CITY’S GRANT OF ZONING VARIANCE TO ALLOW RICHARD ELAM TO BUILD A FENCE ALONG HIS DRIVEWAY Case Number: L07-0309 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | William Alias, Jr. |
THOMAS HENRY FREELAND IV, JOYCE MARIE FREELAND |
|
|
| Appellee: | The City of Oxford, Mississippi | POPE SHANNON MALLETTE, PAUL BOWIE WATKINS JR. | ||
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: | Real property - Zoning variance - Jurisdiction - Timeliness of appeal - Section 11-51-75 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City of Oxford granted a zoning variance to Richard Elam for construction of a privacy fence which bordered his and William Alias’s residential property. Alias appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Alias appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | In its appellate brief, the City raises for the first time the issue of whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Commission. The City argues that Alias’s appeal to the circuit court was untimely because Alias did not file the notice of appeal within ten days of the City’s decision to grant the variance, as required by section 11-51-75. Where an appeal is not perfected within the statutory time constraints of section 11-51-75, no jurisdiction is conferred on the appellate court; and the untimely action should be dismissed. Alias claims that the question of timeliness is not a question of subject-matter jurisdiction and, therefore, can be waived. However, when a circuit court sits as an appellate court, and not as a court of general jurisdiction, the jurisdiction provided by section 11-51-75 is akin to subject-matter jurisdiction and cannot be waived. In this case, the circuit court’s jurisdiction was provided solely by section 11-51-75 and was not within the circuit court’s general jurisdiction. The time limit is, thus, mandatory and jurisdictional. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
