In re City of Madison, No. 2006-AN-01574-SCT.
| Decision Date | 03 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2006-AN-01574-SCT. |
| Citation | 983 So.2d 1035 |
| Parties | In the Matter of The ENLARGEMENT AND EXTENSION OF THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MADISON, Mississippi. Ronald Russell, Kelly Kersh, Charles Warwick, Tom Johnson, Richard Davis, Harlan Sistrunk and Frank Bell v. City of Madison, Mississippi. City of Madison v. Ronald Russell, Bill Robertson, Kelly Kersh, Charles Warwick, Tom Johnson, Stan Patterson, Richard Davis, George Ardelean, Lisa Markham, Harlan Sistrunk, Frank Bell and Larry Spencer. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
T. Jackson Lyons, Jackson, attorney for appellants.
James L. Carroll, Myles A. Parker, Melissa Annelle Rose, Jackson, Jacob Thomas Evans Stutzman, C. John Hedglin, Madison, attorneys for appellee.
Before WALLER, P.J., CARLSON and LAMAR, JJ.
¶ 1. The City of Madison petitioned the Chancery Court of Madison County to enlarge and extend its existing boundaries to incorporate an area situated to the north and northwest of the existing city limits. The special chancellor approved all of the proposed annexation area except for approximately 2.5 square miles to the north of the current city limits. As a result of the special chancellor's decision, the objectors to the annexation have appealed to us and the City of Madison has cross-appealed. We find that, under the totality of the circumstances, the special chancellor's findings are reasonable and supported by substantial and credible evidence. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Madison County Chancery Court on both direct appeal and cross-appeal.1
¶ 2. At a public meeting on April 2, 2002, an ordinance expanding the boundaries of the City of Madison was unanimously adopted by the city's Board of Aldermen and signed by Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler. Based on this action, on April 3, 2002, the city filed in the Madison County Chancery Court its "Petition for the Approval, Ratification and Confirmation of the Enlargement and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Madison, Mississippi" (Petition) pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-1-27, et seq. Through this Petition, the city sought to annex approximately 15.80 square miles of land comprised of sixteen parcels located primarily to the north and northwest of the current city limits.
¶ 3. On April 24, 2002, Kelly Kersh, Ronald Russell, Bill Robertson, Charles Warwick, Tom Johnson, Stan Patterson, George Ardelean, Richard Davis, Lisa Markham, Harlan Sistrunk, and Frank Bell (the "Objectors") filed their Objection to the city's Petition. Additionally, on May 30, 2002, Larry Spencer filed his separate Objection to the city's Petition. Thereafter, on June 7, 2002, Billy and Thelma Carpenter caused an objection letter to be filed in this matter on their behalf.
¶ 4. After the chancellors of the Eleventh Chancery Court District (of which Madison County is a part), recused themselves, this Court's chief justice, on May 27, 2003, entered an order appointing former chancellor Jason H. Floyd as a special judge to preside and conduct proceedings in this matter.
¶ 5. By early January 2005, there had been numerous trial settings and continuances, but pursuant to previous notice, a trial was scheduled for February 7, 2005, on the city's annexation petition. However, on January 14, 2005, the chancery court conducted a hearing on a motion to dismiss which had been filed by the Objectors. By order dated February 7, 2005, and entered on February 10, 2005, the special chancellor denied the Objectors' motion to dismiss; and likewise, the special chancellor allowed the city to amend its petition, since there was an error in the description of the city's entire boundary as changed. Based on the special chancellor's ruling, the city was required to file an amended annexation petition and re-publish and re-post the annexation notice as required by statute; therefore, the scheduled hearing was once again continued and subsequently set for trial on September 26, 2005.
¶ 6. On August, 12, 2005, the city filed its amended annexation petition and notice of hearing, caused process to be issued, and re-posted and re-published notice as required by statute; however, once again, the hearing had to be continued because the amended petition contained errors in the description of the proposed annexation area (PAA), as well as the entire boundary as changed. By order dated September 20, 2005, and entered on September 23, 2005, the special chancellor, inter alia, granted leave to the city once again to amend its petition to correct these errors in the legal descriptions; likewise, the special chancellor reset the trial for January 9, 2006. On November 17, 2005, the city filed its second amended annexation petition, and re-published and re-posted the annexation notice as required by statute.
¶ 7. Eventually, after a twelve-day trial which spanned a period of time from January 9, 2006, through January 26, 2006, and in which numerous lay witnesses and expert witnesses testified in support of, and in opposition to, the city's annexation efforts, the Madison County Chancery Court took this matter under advisement and in due course entered its detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOFCOL) on August 8, 2006. In its FOFCOL, the chancery court found the annexation to be reasonable except as to three of the sixteen parcels of land. As to the three parcels of land which were not judicially approved for annexation, the special chancellor stated:
The Court finds, however, that within the PAA, the following three parcels have experienced little if any spillover and further there are no roads or streets extending into these areas. The first area is that portion of Section 31 that lies east of Bozeman Road and west of Interstate 55 and also Section 32 and Section 33, all in Township 8 North, Range 2 East, all within the PAA. While this land may become reasonable for annexation at some future date, the Court finds that due to lack of development and access roads, this time has not yet arrived.
The other two areas are portions of Parcel 10 and Parcel 11 located in Sections 10 and 11, Township 7 North and Range 1 East. There are no primary roads or spillover development in these two areas. The northern most portion of Parcel 11, lying to the west of Livingston Road, is undeveloped with limited access. However, Livingston Road, a well-traveled transportation corridor, transverses its entire eastern boundary, and no objection was made to it being annexed. In fact, the testimony is that the landowner requests its annexation. The court finds that annexation of this area as well as that portion of Parcel 10 which is located in Section 14, Township 7 North, Range 1 East are reasonable and they are allowed. Annexation of the remainder of Parcels 10 and 11 is unreasonable and is denied. The owner uses this as a farm and vehemently objects to its annexation. (Internal citations omitted).
On September 5, 2006, the special chancellor entered a Final Judgment consistent with the FOFCOL. From this Final Judgment, the Objectors filed their notice of appeal on September 15, 2006, asserting that the chancery court's decision to approve the majority of the city's annexation plan was manifestly wrong and not supported by substantial credible evidence. On the same day, the city cross-appealed, asserting that the chancery court had erred in failing to also approve for annexation the three parcels comprising approximately 2.5 square miles of land lying to the north of the current city boundaries.
¶ 8. Although the parties couch the issue(s) in different terminology, in the end, a chancellor's decision concerning annexation is reviewed by this Court on appeal through the lens of reasonableness. Stated differently, we have in the past acknowledged "the judiciary's limited role in determining whether a municipality's exercise of its legislatively granted authority to enlarge its boundaries via annexation is reasonable, given the totality of the circumstances." Lamar County v. City of Hattiesburg (In re Extension of the Boundaries of Hattiesburg), 840 So.2d 69, 73 (Miss.2003). See also In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Winona, 879 So.2d 966, 971 (Miss.2004). When a chancellor determines an annexation to be reasonable, this Court will reverse on appeal only when the "chancellor's decision is manifestly wrong and is not supported by substantial and credible evidence." Id. (citing City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d at 81). Furthermore [w]here there is conflicting, credible evidence, we defer to the findings below. Findings of fact made in the context of conflicting, credible evidence may not be disturbed unless this Court can say that from all the evidence that such findings are manifestly wrong, given the weight of the evidence. We may only reverse where the Chancery Court has employed erroneous legal standards or where we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.
Id. (citing Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss.1989)). See also In re Enlargement and Extension of Municipal Boundaries of City of Biloxi, 744 So.2d 270, 277 (Miss.1999); McElhaney v. City of Horn Lake, 501 So.2d 401, 403 (Miss.1987); Extension of Boundaries of City of Moss Point v. Sherman, 492 So.2d 289, 290 (Miss.1986); Enlargement of Boundaries of Yazoo City v. City of Yazoo City, 452 So.2d 837, 838 (Miss.1984); Extension of Boundaries of City of Clinton, 450 So.2d 85, 89 (Miss.1984).
¶ 9. In reviewing the chancellor's decision as to whether a proposed annexation is reasonable, this Court takes into account twelve indicia of reasonableness: (1) the municipality's need to expand; (2) whether the area sought to be annexed may be deemed to be reasonably within a path of growth of the city; (3) the potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the proposed annexation area;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deffenbaugh Indus. v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kan.
...Syl. ¶ 3 (Kan. App. 1981). As to the dangers of uncollected trash, see In re Enlargement & Extension of Corp. Limits of City of Madison, 983 So.2d 1035, 1045 (Miss. 2008) (insufficient trash pickup “contributes to uncollected waste in the area, which in turn contributes to the spread of dis......
-
City of Saltillo v. City of Tupelo
...in reaching an opinion on the twelve indicia. ¶ 31. In City of Madison (Enlargement and Extension of the Corporate Limits), 983 So.2d 1035, 1040–50 (Miss.2008), planning experts considered development already occurring in the proposed annexation areas, the city's revenues and expenditures, ......
-
Pendorff Cmty. Ass'n, LLC v. City of Laurel
...decision concerning annexation is reviewed by th[e] Court on appeal through the lens of reasonableness." Russell v. City of Madison (In re City of Madison) , 983 So. 2d 1035, 1041 (¶ 8) (Miss. 2008). "In reviewing the chancellor's decision as to whether a proposed annexation is reasonable, ......
-
In the Matter of The Enlarging v. Town of Walls
...as the reasonableness of annexation is determined by the totality of the circumstances. In re Enlargement and Extension of the Corporate Limits of the City of Madison, 983 So.2d 1035, 1042 (Miss.2008).d. The need for planning in the annexation area ¶ 21. The chancellor noted that Horn Lake'......