City of Horn Lake v. Town of Walls


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-AN-00584-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-10-2011
Opinion Author: Kitchens, J.
Holding: Affirmed.

Additional Case Information: Topic: Municipal boundaries & annexation - Reasonableness
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): King, J.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES AND ANNEXATION

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-24-2009
Appealed from: Desoto County Chancery Court
Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr.
Disposition: The DeSoto County Chancery Court found that the proposed annexations of both the City of Horn Lake and the Town of Walls were unreasonable and denied both municipalities' petitions for approval, ratification, and confirmation of the enlargement of their respective municipal boundaries.
Case Number: 07-12-2387ML

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: In the Matter of the Enlarging, Extending and Defining the Corporate Limits and Boundaries of The City of Horn Lake, DeSoto County, Mississippi; City of Horn Lake, Mississippi




J. CHADWICK MASK, CLIFTON MICHAEL DECKER, BILLY C. CAMPBELL, JR.



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief
  • Appellant #2 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Town of Walls, Mississippi, DeSoto County, Mississippi and Walls Fire Protection District JERRY L. MILLS, JOHN P. SCANLON, CAROLYN B. MILLS, AMY HOLLIMAN BROWN, ANTHONY E. NOWAK, JOSEPH DAVID NEYMAN, JR., PAUL R. SCOTT  

    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: Municipal boundaries & annexation - Reasonableness

    Summary of the Facts: The Town of Walls filed a petition for the approval, ratification and confirmation of the enlargement and extension of its municipal boundary, seeking to annex approximately four square miles of territory contiguous to the municipality. The City of Horn Lake filed its separate defenses, answer, and objections. Additionally, DeSoto County filed a limited objection to the proposed annexation by the Town of Walls. Horn Lake later filed a complaint in the nature of a petition for the ratification, approval, and confirmation of an ordinance enlarging, extending, and defining the corporate limits and boundaries of the City of Horn Lake, seeking to annex approximately nine square miles of territory immediately west of the existing city. The proposed annexation area sought by Horn Lake included almost the entire proposed annexation area sought by Walls. Walls filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and objections. The Walls Fire Protection District filed an answer and objection to the proposed extension of the municipal boundaries of the City of Horn Lake. DeSoto County filed a limited objection to the proposed annexation by the City of Horn Lake. Horn Lake filed a motion to consolidate the annexation proceedings of the Town of Walls with the annexation proceedings of the City of Horn Lake. Walls opposed the consolidation; however, the chancellor granted Horn Lake’s motion. Following a bench trial, the chancellor issued a thirty-seven-page opinion detailing the rationale for finding that the proposed annexations by both Horn Lake and Walls were unreasonable when viewed in the totality of the circumstances and must be denied in all respects and areas. The City of Horn Lake appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: In determining whether annexation is reasonable, the Court considers the municipality’s need to expand, whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city, potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the annexed areas, the municipality’s financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised, need for zoning and overall planning in the area, need for municipal services in the area sought to be annexed, whether there are natural barriers between the city and the proposed annexation area, past performance and time element involved in the city’s provision of services to its present residents, economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the proposed annexation area, impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups, whether the property owners and other inhabitants of the areas sought to be annexed have in the past, and in the foreseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy economic and social benefits of the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes, and any other factors that may suggest reasonableness. The ultimate determination must be whether annexation is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The City of Horn Lake argues that the chancellor erred in finding that Horn Lake did not have a need to expand, alleging that the chancellor failed to cite evidence in support of his findings. That allegation is at odds with both the chancellor’s written order and the record in this case. The chancellor was presented conflicting, credible evidence from experts for both municipalities, and the chancellor’s finding that the subfactor of spillover development did not favor annexation by Horn Lake was supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor’s findings that the subfactor of the city’s internal growth weighed against annexation by Horn Lake was supported by substantial, credible evidence. Because DeSoto County provides municipal-level planning by providing building inspectors, code enforcement officers, planning commission and geographic information services, the chancellor found that there was no exigent need for further zoning and planning in the annexation area. The chancellor also found that Horn Lake had failed to provide any long-range planning for the proposed annexation area. The chancellor’s findings with regard to this subfactor were supported by substantial, credible evidence. The trial court’s findings with regard to increased new building permit activity were supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor found that Horn Lake, like most municipalities, had a need to maintain and expand its tax base for financial benefit; that no environmental influences would affect the proposed annexation area; that the need to exercise control over the annexation area was minimal; that only minimal sales tax revenues would be brought in as a result of the proposed annexation; that there were minimal geographical limitations on future expansion; and that no person from the proposed annexation area had come forward and evinced a desire to become part of Horn Lake. The chancellor found that there was no need for the City of Horn Lake to expand, and that finding was supported by substantial, credible evidence. Horn Lake alleges that the chancellor’s finding that the indicium of potential health hazards in the annexation area weighs against annexation by Horn Lake is manifestly wrong and ignores substantial, undisputed, credible evidence. That allegation is contrary to the chancellor’s written order and the record in this case. The chancellor found some evidence of open dumping of garbage, standing water and sewage, and health hazards from sewage and waste disposal; however, he also found that the municipalities of Horn Lake and Walls had more problems with those issues than the proposed annexation area. Because Horn Lake had no plan to require residents to connect to a central sewer system if available, there would be no ordinance to correct the use of septic tanks in areas where the soil conditions are not conducive to on-site septic systems and no ordinance to correct potential health hazards from those septic systems in the annexed areas. Moreover, evidence at trial demonstrated that a subdivision, part of Horn Lake’s 1987 annexation, still had problems with raw sewage, and that Horn Lake had taken nearly twenty-two years to provide that annexed area with sanitary sewers. Accordingly, the chancellor’s findings were supported by substantial, credible evidence. Horn Lake argues that the evidence before the trial court overwhelmingly established that the City had reasonable financial ability to deliver the services and improvements it had committed to provide the residents and property owners of the proposed annexation area. However, the chancellor’s findings that Horn Lake is experiencing economic problems were supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor found that Horn Lake’s services and facilities plan for the proposed annexation area contained miscalculations which reflected incorrect information regarding the assessed value of property in the proposed area of annexation and the combined city and that the evidence was untrustworthy. The chancellor’s findings were supported by substantial, credible evidence. The chancellor findings that the indicium of the municipality’s financial ability to make the improvements and furnish the municipal services promised weighed against annexation by Horn Lake were supported by substantial, credible evidence. The trial court found that Horn Lake had a plan for immediately providing solid waste collection services; however, that provision would provide no greater service than that currently provided by a DeSoto County contract with an independent provider. The chancellor’s findings were supported by substantial and credible evidence. The chancellor found that, except for some major developments in the northeast quadrant of the proposed annexation area of Horn Lake, the area was sparsely populated and consisted largely of single family residences on large lots and agricultural areas. The chancellor’s finding was supported by substantial and credible evidence. The trial court’s findings that Horn Lake’s past record of performance in providing services for its citizens did not favor annexation were supported by substantial, credible evidence. Horn Lake argues that the substantial and credible evidence before the trial court established that the citizens of the proposed annexation area were deriving benefits due to their proximity to the city’s corporate limits without paying their fair share of taxes to support those benefits. The chancellor’s finding that it cannot reasonably argued that the fair share of taxes and expenses are not paid by residents of the proposed area for any benefits which they received and which have been proven is supported by substantial, credible evidence. Thus, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court