Lamey v. Bd. of Supervisors of Jackson County
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00815-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-02-2010 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Removal from office of commissioner - Section 19-5-167 - Residency requirements - Section 25-1-59 - Section 19-5-177 Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, J. Concurs in Result Only: Maxwell, J., concurs in result only without separate written opinion. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-28-2009 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REMOVE RODNEY LAMEY FROM HIS POSITION AS COMMISSIONER Case Number: 2008-00079(2) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Rodney Lamey |
WILLIAM MICHAEL KULICK |
|
|
| Appellee: | Board of Supervisors of Jackson County | KATHERINE B. PARKER | ||
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: | Removal from office of commissioner - Section 19-5-167 - Residency requirements - Section 25-1-59 - Section 19-5-177 |
| Summary of the Facts: | Rodney Lamey served as an appointed commissioner of the West Jackson County Utility District. At a hearing held on April 7, 2008, the Jackson County Board of Supervisors found that Lamey no longer possessed the qualifications to hold the office of commissioner. Specifically, the Board determined that Lamey no longer resided within the district. During the hearing, Lamey appeared before the Board and explained that he temporarily moved out of his Jackson County residence during the remodeling of his home. He further explained that during the temporary relocation, Hurricane Katrina destroyed the residence. Unfortunately, his new residence sat approximately one-hundred feet outside of the Jackson County line and no longer satisfied the county residency requirements of his appointment. After the hearing, the Board issued a resolution stating that Lamey no longer met the residency requirements necessary to serve as a commissioner of the District and that Lamey had, therefore, vacated his office. Lamey submitted a bill of exceptions to the president of the Board, and then he filed the bill of exceptions and an appeal in circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision to remove Lamey from his office as commissioner. Lamey appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Lamey argues that the language of section 19-5-167 clearly mandates that after the creation of a county water district, the Board possesses no authority to interfere with the business of the district except to appoint commissioners upon the occurrence of a vacancy. Lamey argues that the statutory language supports his argument that only the District, not the Board, possessed the authority to determine if a vacancy occurred. The Board relies on section 25-1-59 in ascertaining that since Lamey moved out of the boundaries of Jackson County, then he thereby vacated his office as commissioner. The Board found that the vacancy required Board action to fill the vacancy. The circuit judge states in her opinion that the attorney general takes the position that the appointive authority must determine whether a person has “removed” himself from the district, and if by removing from the district, he thereby created a vacancy. As a result, the circuit court held that the action of the Board in declaring a vacancy based on Lamey’s removal from the district constituted appropriate action by the Board. The Board possessed the responsibility to determine factually whether an individual removed himself or herself from the district of appointment. If the Board determines that an individual indeed voluntarily removed from the district, then a vacancy necessarily occurred by operation of law according to statutory appointment requirements. Therefore, the circuit court’s judgment finding that substantial evidence exists to support the Board’s decision is affirmed. Lamey also argues that the circuit court erred in its factual finding concluding that he had removed himself from the district. He cites section 19-5-177(k), which authorizes the District to “extend its services to areas beyond but within one (1) mile of the boundaries of such district.” The statutory language authorizes the District to extend its services, not its legal boundaries. As a result, section 19-5-177 fails to extend the legal boundaries of the District to include Lamey’s residence in Harrison County, a county different from the county of appointment. Substantial evidence exists in support of the Board’s factual determination that Lamey no longer resides within the boundaries of the District; thus, a vacancy exists. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
