In re Municipal Boundaries of City of Southaven, 2002-AN-00563-SCT.

• Decision Date: 20 November 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2002-AN-00563-SCT.,2002-AN-00563-SCT.
• Parties: In the Matter of the Enlargement and Extension of the MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, Mississippi. City of Horn Lake v. City of Southaven, Mississippi.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

864 So.2d 912

In the Matter of the Enlargement and Extension of the MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF the CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, Mississippi.

City of Horn Lake v. City of Southaven, Mississippi.

No. 2002-AN-00563-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

November 20, 2003.

Rehearing Denied February 12, 2004.

Billy C. Campbell, Jr., William Austin Baskin, Jerry R. Wallace, attorneys for appellant.

Jerry L. Mills, Ridgeland, Ronald Louis Taylor, Southaven, attorneys for appellee.

Before SMITH, P.J., WALLER and CARLSON, JJ.

WALLER, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. The City of Horn Lake, Mississippi, appeals from the Chancery Court of DeSoto County's approval of the annexation of 310.24 acres in DeSoto County (the "Proposed Annexation Area" or "PAA") by the City of Southaven, Mississippi. The first two issues raised by Horn Lake pertain to an agreement entered into by the city administrations of Horn Lake and Southaven wherein Southaven agreed not to object to an annexation of the PAA by Horn Lake and declared the property to be in Horn Lake's natural path of growth. Horn Lake argues that, based on this agreement, equitable estoppel and judicial estoppel should bar Southaven's annexation of the PAA. Horn Lake also argues that the chancellor's decision to allow Southaven's annexation of the PAA was manifestly wrong and was not supported by substantial and credible evidence. Finding no merit in these issues, we affirm the chancellor's decision to allow Southaven to annex the PAA.

FACTS

¶ 2. In the 1990s, Horn Lake, which lies to the west of I-55, and Southaven, which lies to the east of I-55, both experienced massive growth due to their proximity to the Memphis, Tennessee, metropolitan area. Horn Lake and Southaven each annexed large tracts of land to accommodate the residential and commercial growth. During this growth period, Southaven acquired, inter alia, some land which lay west of I-55, but east of United States Highway 51.¹

¶ 3. In 1997, Southaven filed proceedings to annex certain land west of Highway 51. After five days of trial in early 1998, Southaven and Horn Lake entered into an agreement whereby Southaven agreed not to annex the land west of Highway 51 and would "not object to any future annexation filed by the City of Horn Lake to annex any lands ... West of the West right of way of Interstate 55." Southaven also stipulated that "the aforesaid tracts lie in the path of growth of the City of Horn Lake and should be considered as a part of Horn Lake's annexation reserve area."

¶ 4. After the agreement was made, Horn Lake annexed land lying to the south and west of Horn Lake, but did not seek annexation of the PAA in question.

¶ 5. Southaven filed annexation proceedings in 2001 to acquire the 310.24 acres which are the subject of this appeal. The 310.24 acres lies to the south and west of Southaven and are bisected by Highway 51. A little over half of the entire tract already lay within Southaven's city limits. The PAA is owned in its entirety by the College Road Land Company and is described as "completely unimproved land consisting of uninhabited pasture land with scattered trees and rolling hills." The owners requested Southaven to annex the property, because they wanted to develop the property as a single unit under the regulations of a single jurisdiction.

¶ 6. Horn Lake filed a motion to dismiss based on Southaven's stipulation that land west of the I-55 west right-of-way was in Horn Lake's path of growth, and its agreement that it would not object to Horn Lake's future annexation of land lying west of Highway 51. Southaven responded, stating that it was not bound by the 1998 agreement because it had been entered into by a previous administration which ended its term of office on June 30, 2001. Horn Lake countered that the "previous" administration was comprised of exactly the same people as the "current" administration, and that equity demanded that Southaven abide by the 1998 agreement.

¶ 7. In denying Horn Lake's motion to dismiss, the chancellor noted he could not find, and Horn Lake had not cited, any authority which states that if the same city administration is reelected for a successive term, the principle that one city administration cannot bind a succeeding administration does not apply. The chancellor went on to find that Southaven's annexation of the PAA was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in the best interest of the owners. From these orders, Horn Lake appeals.

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 8. For questions of law, we employ a de novo standard of review and will only reverse for an erroneous interpretation or application of the law. T.T.W. v. C.C., 839 So.2d 501, 503-04 (Miss.2003).

¶ 9. Our standard of review for annexation is very limited. We may only reverse the chancery court's findings as to the reasonableness of an annexation if the chancellor's decision is manifestly wrong and is not supported by substantial and credible evidence. Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 494 (Miss.1995). We also stated "[w]here there is conflicting, credible evidence, we defer to the findings below." Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So.2d 918, 921 (Miss.1989). "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." Bassett, 542 So.2d at 921. "We 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.

I. WHETHER EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD BAR SOUTHAVEN'S ANNEXATION OF THE PAA.

¶ 10. Equitable estoppel is a doctrine "by which a person may be precluded by his act or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right he otherwise would have." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 373 (6th ed. abr. 1991). A party asserting equitable estoppel must prove a(1) belief and reliance on some representation; (2) change of position as a result of the representation; and (3) detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position. Mound Bayou School Dist. v. Cleveland School Dist., 817 So.2d 578, 583 (Miss.2002); Covington County v. Page, 456 So.2d 739, 741 (Miss.1984).

A. Whether Annexation is a Discretionary Act or a Ministerial Act

¶ 11. Southaven contends that neither equitable nor judicial estoppel apply because, where the act at issue is a discretionary one instead of a ministerial one, one city administration cannot bind succeeding city administrations. Biloxi Firefighters Assoc. v. City of Biloxi, 810 So.2d 589, 593 (Miss.2002) (citing American Oil Co. v. Marion Co., 187 Miss. 148, 192 So. 296, 299 (1939); Tullos v. Town of Magee, 181 Miss. 288, 179 So. 557, 558 (1938); Edwards Hotel & City R. Co. v. City of Jackson, 96 Miss. 547, 51 So. 802, 805 (1910)).²

¶ 12. We have never determined whether the power to annex is discretionary or ministerial, but the statute conferring the power to annex uses permissive language, not mandatory: "When any municipality shall desire to enlarge or contract the boundaries thereof by adding thereto adjacent unincorporated territory....," and, "In the event the municipality desires to enlarge such boundaries...." Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-27 (Rev.2001) (emphasis added). The use of this permissive language leads to the conclusion that the power to annex is a discretionary act, not a mandatory act. Therefore, Biloxi Firefighters and the other cases would apply to an agreement whereby a city administration agrees not to annex a certain parcel of land, and that agreement would not be binding on successive administrations.

¶ 13. On February 8, 2000, the landowners wrote a letter to the DeSoto County Planning Commissioner in which they stated that they "intend[ed] to honor the current non-aggression agreement between Southaven and Horn Lake signed in 1998." We find that this letter is without significance because the "non-aggression agreement" was not valid after Southaven's city elections in 2001.

B. Limits on Equitable Estoppel

¶ 14. Horn Lake states that equitable estoppel is not limited by the precedent set out above. Yet at least one state has found that equitable estoppel does not apply where a governmental entity claims sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Indiana Dep't of Envtl. Mgm't v. Conard, 614 N.E.2d 916, 921 (Ind.1993),

except where there is "clear evidence that [the government's] agents made representations upon which the party asserting estoppel relied." West Publ'g Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Revenue, 524 N.E.2d 1329, 1333 (Ind. Tax Ct.1988). However, the party claiming equitable estoppel against a governmental entity "must show that estoppel is not inconsistent with the public interest, and this interest must be weighed and balanced against the equities of the circumstances." Muncie Indus. Revolving Loan Fund Bd. v. Indiana Const. Corp., 583 N.E.2d 769 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).

¶ 15. The public interest for Southaven to annex the PAA is without question. Southaven a growing by leaps and bounds, and it needs more land in an area where land is at a premium. The cities of Southaven, Horn Lake and Olive Branch are all jockeying for more land where undeveloped land is increasingly scarce. Therefore, Horn Lake cannot show that estoppel "is not inconsistent with the public interest."

¶ 16. Horn Lake claims that it detrimentally relied upon the agreement because, believing that the PAA would eventually be annexed, it intentionally chose not to seek to annex the PAA when it had the opportunity to do so. We find this contention to be without merit because Horn Lake, which seeks equity, did not take affirmative steps to protect its rights under the Agreement. Horn Lake had a window of opportunity to annex the PAA and it did not act. Weighing the equities, we find that Horn Lake was "harmed" not by Southaven, but by...