City of Jackson v. Byram Incorporators

• Decision Date: 02 April 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2007-AN-00946-SCT.,2007-AN-00946-SCT.
• Citation: 16 So.3d 662
• Parties: CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. BYRAM INCORPORATORS and Whit Adams, Yolande Allen, Charles Brooks, Charlotte Bryant, Mac Edwards, Toni Jones, Carolyn Manning, Stanley Noble, Caraleigh Paramore, Annette Parrett, Darrell Smith, Mike Walley, Helen White, Howard Whitlock and Shirley Williams v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, Greater Jackson Industrial Association and Byram Incorporators.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

16 So.3d 662

CITY OF JACKSON, Mississippi v. BYRAM INCORPORATORS and Whit Adams, Yolande Allen, Charles Brooks, Charlotte Bryant, Mac Edwards, Toni Jones, Carolyn Manning, Stanley Noble, Caraleigh Paramore, Annette Parrett, Darrell Smith, Mike Walley, Helen White, Howard Whitlock and Shirley Williams v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, Greater Jackson Industrial Association and Byram Incorporators.

No. 2007-AN-00946-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 2, 2009.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 11, 2009.

James L. Carroll, T. Jackson Lyons, J. Chadwick Mask, Jackson, Jacob T.E. Stutzman, attorneys for appellants.

Jerry L. Mills, James L. Carroll, J. Chadwick Mask, Jacob T.E. Stutzman, E Stephen Williams, Stephen E. Gardner, Jackson, attorneys for appellees.

EN BANC.

LAMAR, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. This appeal involves the competing interests of the City of Jackson ("Jackson") and petitioners from the community of Byram over the same parcel of land. The petitioners, known as the Byram Incorporators ("BI"), sought to incorporate an area of approximately forty-four square miles extending south of the existing corporate limits of Jackson. Jackson sought annexation of a certain parcel of land ("Parcel 1"), which is comprised of 22.59 square miles and located entirely within the proposed incorporation area ("PIA").

¶ 2. The chancellor consolidated the incorporation and annexation matters for trial. After a lengthy trial, the chancellor found the incorporation of approximately twenty square miles to be reasonable. The chancellor also found that Jackson had a "limited" need for expansion and found reasonable the annexation of an approximately four-square-mile area. The trial court further found that certain areas sought to be incorporated by BI and annexed by Jackson should remain unincorporated in Hinds County.

¶ 3. Jackson appeals to this Court from both the annexation decree and the incorporation decree, claiming that it is entitled to all of Parcel 1. Various citizens ("Objectors"), who reside in the four-square-mile area that the trial court awarded to Jackson, appeal the trial court's grant of annexation and denial of incorporation. BI does not appeal the final decree entered by the trial court but opposes Jackson's appeal. Likewise, the Greater Jackson Industrial Center Association ("Industrial Center") does not appeal the final decree, but contends the trial court was correct in allowing it to remain unincorporated in Hinds County.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

First Petition for Incorporation

¶ 4. BI filed its first petition for incorporation on March 18, 2002. Subsequently, BI voluntarily dismissed its petition because it lacked the statutorily required signatures of two-thirds of qualified electors.¹ The petition was dismissed without prejudice.

Second Petition for Incorporation

¶ 5. BI filed a second petition for incorporation on May 2, 2003, naming the City of Jackson, the Town of Terry, the City of Richland, and the Town of Florence as defendants. This petition consisted of fifty-five groups of signature pages, each group of pages being attached to a document labeled "Petition for Incorporation." This filing included those petitions and signature pages filed in 2002 ("2002 Petitions")² and copies of the petitions and signature pages circulated after the dismissal of the 2002 Petitions ("2003 Petitions").³ The record reveals that the 2002 and 2003 Petitions were identical, except that as filed, the 2003 Petitions failed to contain page three. The 2002 Petitions did contain the missing page. Page three contained the following information: the number of inhabitants in the PIA, the assessed value of real property in the PIA, and a portion of BI's aims in seeking incorporation.

First Amended Petition for Incorporation

¶ 6. BI filed an amended petition for incorporation on July 17, 2003. In the amended petition, BI added two defendants, the Town of Raymond and the City of Clinton. Additionally, the amended petition included page three, but it contained a typographical error in the metes-and-bounds description of the PIA.

Second Amended Petition for Incorporation

¶ 7. BI filed a second amended petition for incorporation on July 23, 2003.⁴ In the second amended petition, the petitioners corrected the metes-and-bounds description of the PIA.

Jackson's Annexation Ordinance

¶ 8. On March 23, 2004, the Jackson City Council adopted an Ordinance Enlarging and Extending the Corporate Boundaries of the City of Jackson. Jackson filed its petition for annexation on March 29, 2004. The ordinance and petition for annexation described three parcels of land, one of which, Parcel 1, was entirely within the PIA and is the subject of this appeal. Thereafter, the chancellor consolidated the incorporation and annexation proceedings.⁵

¶ 9. Jackson challenged the court's jurisdiction to hear the incorporation and moved to bifurcate the jurisdictional issues regarding incorporation. The trial court granted the motion to bifurcate, and a trial on the jurisdictional requirements commenced November 1, 2004. After five weeks of trial on jurisdictional issues, the trial court found that BI had established jurisdiction. Jackson appeals the chancellor's determination of jurisdiction.

¶ 10. By opinion and order entered December 21, 2006, the trial court determined that the incorporation of approximately twenty square miles was reasonable and required by public convenience and necessity. The trial court also determined that the annexation of approximately four square miles was reasonable. The trial court's ruling allowed some areas, including the Industrial Center, to remain in unincorporated Hinds County.

DISCUSSION

I. Whether the Trial Court Had Jurisdiction To Consider the Petition For Incorporation.

¶ 11. This Court reviews the chancellor's findings for manifest error as to whether a petition for incorporation is legally sufficient. City of Pascagoula v. Scheffler, 487 So.2d 196, 199 (Miss.1986). In explaining the standard of review, this Court has stated that it "cannot overturn the decree of a chancellor unless it finds with reasonable certainty that the decree is manifestly wrong on a question of law or interpretation of facts pertaining to legal questions." Id. at 200. As to questions of law, this Court applies a de novo review. In re Extension & Enlarging of the Boundaries of Laurel, 863 So.2d 968, 971 (Miss.2004).

¶ 12. Under Section 21-1-13, "[w]henever the inhabitants of any unincorporated territory shall desire to incorporate ... they shall prepare a petition and file same in the chancery court of the county in which such territory is located." Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-13 (Rev.2007). The petition "shall" contain the following:

(1) it shall describe accurately the metes and bounds of the territory proposed to be incorporated and there shall be attached to such petition a map or plat of the boundaries of the proposed municipality;

(2) it shall set forth the corporate name which is desired;

(3) it shall be signed by at least two-thirds of the qualified electors residing in the territory proposed to be incorporated;

(4) it shall set forth the inhabitants of such territory;

(5) it shall set forth the assessed valuation of the real property in such territory according to the latest available assessments thereof;

(6) it shall state the aims of the petitioners in seeking said incorporation, and shall set forth the municipal and public services which said municipal corporation proposes to render and the reasons why the public convenience and necessity would be served by the creation of such municipal corporation;

(7) it shall contain a statement of the names of the persons the petitioners desire appointed as officers of such municipality; and

(8) it shall be sworn to by one or more of the petitioners.

Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-13(1)-(8) (Rev. 2007). Furthermore, "the petitioners for incorporation have the burden of proving the sufficiency of [the] petition." Scheffler, 487 So.2d at 198.

¶ 13. Jackson essentially presents three arguments in refuting the trial court's jurisdiction to hear the incorporation. First, Jackson argues that a petition for incorporation can never be amended after it has been filed. Second, Jackson argues that a petition with a technical error (i.e., a missing page) is fatal under Section 21-1-13 of the Mississippi Code. Last, Jackson argues that a petitioner may not utilize Rule 21 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure to add a party defendant to a petition for incorporation. This Court addresses each argument in turn.

¶ 14. Jackson argues that the requirements of Section 21-1-13 are jurisdictional and must be met at the time the petition is filed. Jackson further argues that a petition for incorporation cannot be amended once it has been filed. Jackson supports its argument with the statutory language of Section 21-1-13 that a petitioner "shall prepare a petition and file same" and the petition "shall" contain the designated information. See Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-13 (Rev.2007). Jackson relies on a pre-rule case, Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 250 Miss. 717, 168 So.2d 40 (1964), to support its contention that a petition must meet all the elements of Section 21-1-13 when filed.

¶ 15. In Bridges, petitioners sought incorporation of an area west of the City of Biloxi and filed a petition for incorporation. Id. at 40. The petitioners then filed an amended petition with additional signatures. Id. On appeal, this Court stated "`[t]he petition must recite the existence of the conditions specified by statute to authorize incorporation, and those required by statute to be included in the petition for incorporation.'" Id. at 41 (quoting McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, § 3.26 (3d ed.1949)). This Court held "that once the petition is filed, amendments thereafter cannot be made to include the names of additional petitioners." Id. The Court refused to count the signatures of the ...