Jones v. Lutken
| Docket Number: | 2009-SA-01823-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-SA-01823-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-22-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Zoning - Non-conforming use - Standing - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Maxwell, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-10-2009 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: RICHARD A. SMITH Disposition: COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE REVERSED Case Number: 2009-0080-CI |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mike Jones |
JOHN PRESTON SCANLON, JERRY L. MILLS |
||
| Appellee: | E.P. Lutken, David Whitehead, Frank Stone and Perry Hutchinson | JOHN H. COX III |
|
|
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 - Non-conforming use - Standing - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Washington County Board of Supervisors granted Mike Jones a permit for a permissible non-conforming use. A group of homeowners appealed to circuit court which reversed the Board of Supervisors decision and denied the permit. Jones appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standing Jones argues that the circuit court’s decision should be vacated because the court never had jurisdiction to hear the case. He claims that the homeowners lacked standing to challenge the Board of Supervisors’ decision. In Mississippi, parties have standing to sue when they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the defendant's conduct. Nearby homeowners have standing to challenge a zoning decision based on the homeowners’ proximity to the subject property and their allegations that their property values would be affected by the decision. In this case, all four of the appealing homeowners own homes on Lake Washington. Two of them own homes on land immediately adjacent to Jones’s property. They allege that if Jones is allowed to continue placing portable cabins on his land, then their property values would be negatively impacted. Thus, they have asserted a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation sufficient to confer standing. Issue 2: Substantial evidence The circuit court found that the placement of the portable cabins on RV lots was an expansion of Jones’s non-conforming use of his land on which he had an RV park, a convenience store, and a few permanent cabins available for rent on the land. Where the question is fairly debatable, the decision of the Board of Supervisors must be affirmed. Here, the interpretation of the zoning ordinance definition of RV could include the portable cabins. Accordingly, the Board of Supervisors’ decision was fairly debatable, and the circuit court committed error when it reversed the decision of the Board of Supervisors. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
