In re the Boundaries of the City of Laurel
| Docket Number: | 2002-AN-01805-SCT Linked Case(s): 2002-AN-01805-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-02-2006 Opinion Author: Randolph, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Annexation - Reasonableness - Public convenience and necessity Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : Graves, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-22-2002 Appealed from: Jones County Chancery Court Judge: Franklin C. McKenzie, Jr. Disposition: The Chancellor found the proposed annexation was unreasonable. Case Number: 2002-0616 |
|
| Consolidated: Consolidated with 2004-AN-02160-SCT In the Matter of the Extension and Enlarging of the Boundaries of the City of Laurel, Mississippi; Jones Chancery Court 2nd District; LC Case #: 2002-0616; Ruling Date: 10/19/2004; Ruling Judge: Franklin McKenzie, Jr. | ||
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | In the Matter of the Extension and Enlarging of the Boundaries of the City of Laurel, Mississippi |
RICHARD O. BURSON
LESLIE PETTIS BARRY
NORMAN GENE HORTMAN, 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: | Annexation - Reasonableness - Public convenience and necessity |
| Summary of the Facts: | A petition was jointly filed by the City of Laurel and a private landowner, Randy Chesney. Chesney subsequently sold the property to Malcolm Carmichael. Carmichael was later substituted for Chesney as a party. Chesney, the prior owner of the convenience store/ gas station, approached the City requesting that his business be annexed by the City. The City, recognizing the opportunity to increase its tax base, accommodated Chesney’s request, and passed Ordinance 1402-2002, seeking to annex a portion of the right-of-way of State Highway 15, along with the convenience store. A hearing was held before the Jones County Chancery Court. Without considering evidence of reasonableness, the Chancellor found the annexation could not proceed as a matter of law. The City and Chesney appealed, and the Supreme Court held that the chancery court erred and remanded the case with instructions to proceed on the merits with a full hearing to determine whether the proposed annexation is reasonable. On remand, the chancellor heard testimony and received the evidence presented, before issuing his opinion. The opinion addressed the twelve indicia of reasonableness. The chancellor found the proposed annexation was unreasonable. The City and Carmichael appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The chancellor’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Final Judgment clearly demonstrate that he prudently considered and weighed the proof presented, and analyzed it in conjunction with the twelve factors required to determine the reasonableness vel non of the proposed annexation. Testimony revealed this alleged need for expansion arose only after the Mayor was approached by Chesney. No evidence was presented by the City that there was a need to expand in the proposed area of annexation nor was any evidence presented that the alleged need arose prior to Chesney’s request. Although one witness opined that the PAA was in a path of growth, this opinion was offered without corroborating evidence. The City conceded that Laurel did not seek to annex Carmichael’s property or anything in that area in a prior annexation effort by the City. No testimony was presented that sewage and waste disposal would create any health hazards. The City was able to provide municipal services. Regardless of whether zoning would be implemented, the property retained its present use, as there was no evidence presented of zoning restrictions in the county. The City would not be responsible for providing sewer or water services, as Carmichael did not seek them. Based on the testimony presented, the Chancellor found the request for municipal services was a pretext to legalize the sale of beer, in an area where such sales were prohibited. The Chancellor found the area sought to be annexed would not benefit from the provision of police and fire protection by the City, as Carmichael was already adequately protected by volunteer fire departments and Sheriff’s patrol. The Tallahala Creek and its flood plain lie between the limits of the City and the area sought to be annexed. Only Carmichael and the State Highway Department were in the PAA. The evidence is clear that the only individual to benefit from the proposed annexation would be Carmichael. The chancellor properly considered the twelve indicia of reasonableness. As the chancellor considered the twelve reasonableness factors, it was harmless error for him to consider public convenience and necessity. The language in the Chancellor’s opinion regarding “public convenience and necessity” is, at worst, mere surplusage. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
