Tunica Cnty. v. Town of Tunica, 2015-CA-01183-SCT.

Decision Date11 May 2017
Docket NumberNO. 2015-CA-01183-SCT.,2015-CA-01183-SCT.
Citation227 So.3d 1007
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Parties TUNICA COUNTY, Mississippi v. TOWN OF TUNICA, Mississippi, Tunica County School District, Jim Hood, Attorney General and State of Mississippi

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ELLIS TURNAGE

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: J. CHADWICK MASK, CHRISTOPHER H. COLEMAN, CLIFTON M. DECKER, REGINA R. MAY, JOHN RICHARD MAY, JR., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY: LEE DAVIS THAMES, JR.

EN BANC.

WALLER, CHIEF JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶ 1. Tunica County seeks review of the Tunica County Circuit Court's summary-judgment ruling that a local and private law requiring the County to distribute portions of a revenue-based gaming fee to the Town of Tunica and the Tunica County School District was constitutional. Finding that the County has failed to meet its burden of proving that the legislation in question is unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment. However, because the trial court failed to provide a basis for its award of attorney's fees and did not make any findings concerning the reasonableness of the amounts awarded, we vacate the award of attorney's fees and remand this case to the trial court for further consideration of that issue.

FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2. Tunica County asks this Court to evaluate the constitutionality of certain provisions of Chapter Number 920, Local and Private Laws of 2004 ("House Bill 1002"). House Bill 1002 is the most recent iteration of a long line of local and private legislation dating back to 1992, which was passed after the enactment of the Mississippi Gaming Control Act in 1990. See 1992 Miss. Local and Private Laws ch. 866.1

¶ 3. House Bill 1002 authorizes the Tunica County Board of Supervisors to impose a fee of up to 3.2 percent of gross gaming revenue on all gaming vessels located within or contiguous to Tunica County. 2004 Miss. Private and Local Laws ch. 920, § 1(a). The law instructs the Mississippi State Tax Commission (now the Mississippi Department of Revenue) to calculate, collect, and enforce the collection of this fee in the manner provided for the collection of licensing fees under Mississippi law. Id. at § 2(a). The law also directs the distribution and expenditure of this fee. Critical to this case, the law requires ten percent of the fee to be distributed to the Town of Tunica "for deposit into the general fund of the municipality" and provides the purposes for which those funds may be expended by the Town. Id. at § 2(b)(iv).2 Additionally, twelve percent of the fee must be expended for "educational purposes in Tunica County," and two percent must be expended for "teacher's salary supplementation and teacher training." Id. at §§ 2(b)(iii), (v). Tunica County School District is not mentioned anywhere in HB 1002 or its predecessors.

¶ 4. The County has levied the fee authorized by House Bill 1002 and its predecessors since 1994, and it distributed the proceeds of the fee as required by House Bill 1002 until 2014. According to the County's complaint, the gaming industry experienced a sharp decline between 2007 and 2014, cutting the fees it collected under House Bill 1002 roughly in half during that period. As a result, in November 2013, the Tunica County Board of Supervisors petitioned the Legislature to decrease the Town's distribution under House Bill 1002 from ten percent to five percent and to increase the share of the fee that could be deposited into the County's general fund. The Legislature rejected this proposal. Thus, in October 2014, the Tunica County Board of Supervisors resolved to cease the distributions required by House Bill 1002 and filed a lawsuit in Tunica County Circuit Court challenging the constitutionality of the law's distribution requirements.3 The County named the Town and the School District as defendants. Because the County's complaint challenged the constitutionality of a statute, the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Attorney General's Office, was allowed to intervene to defend the constitutionality of House Bill 1002.

¶ 5. The County's complaint alleged that House Bill 1002 violated several sections of Articles 3 and 4 of the Mississippi Constitution, as well as certain provisions of the Mississippi Code. Specifically, the County argued that House Bill 1002 deprived it of its property interest in the casino fees without due process of law. In addition, the County asserted that the distributions required by House Bill 1002 constituted an unlawful donation of public funds. The County also argued that House Bill 1002 impermissibly suspended certain general statutes and provided improper support for a common school. Alternatively, the County alleged that House Bill 1002 violated Mississippi common law and that the current Board of Supervisors could not be bound by the decisions of prior Boards to comply with the law. The County asked the circuit court to declare House Bill 1002 unconstitutional and issue an injunction against the continued enforcement of the statute. On November 13, 2014, the County filed a motion for a temporary injunction against the enforcement of House Bill 1002 during the litigation.

¶ 6. On November 26, 2014, the Town filed an answer denying all of the allegations in the County's complaint and affirmatively asserting that House Bill 1002 is constitutional in all respects. In addition, the Town filed a counterclaim for injunctive relief against the County, asking the trial court to require the County to come into compliance with House Bill 1002. The School District filed its answer and an identical counterclaim on January 28, 2015.

¶ 7. On February 5, 2015, the Town filed a separate Application for Preliminary Injunction seeking an order enjoining the County from disregarding the distribution mandates of House Bill 1002 and requiring the County to come into immediate compliance with the law. The School District joined in this application.

¶ 8. The trial court held a comprehensive hearing on the parties' competing motions on June 18, 2015. The parties were allowed to call witnesses and present evidence at this hearing. The County's primary argument at the hearing was that HB 1002 "causes Tunica County to donate, and to give without consideration—give away 24 percent of their money." The County also argued that HB 1002 conflicted with general statutes that authorized both counties and municipalities to collect "local government fees" from casinos operating within their borders. Following the hearing, the trial court issued an opinion holding that the County had not met its burden of proving that House Bill 1002 was unconstitutional. The court found that House Bill 1002 "and all its predecessors contain a clear and unambiguous legislative mandate as to how the fees accumulated by the enforcement of the Act are to be disbursed and must immediately be followed." Accordingly, the trial court denied the declaratory and injunctive relief requested by the County and granted the preliminary and permanent injunctive relief sought by the Town and the School District. The trial court also awarded attorneys' fees to the Town and the School District and ordered the County to be assessed interest at the highest legal rate for all funds it had been withholding from the Town and the School District in violation of House Bill 1002.

¶ 9. Following the trial court's ruling, the Town filed a motion for summary judgment. The County did not file a response. On July 28, 2015, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment to the defendants. The County filed its notice of appeal on August 3, 2015. On December 3, 2015, the trial court entered another order again granting the Town's motion for summary judgment. The order indicates that the trial court previously had granted the Town's motion but had not filed it in order to give the County time to respond. After failing to receive a timely response from the County, the trial court reinstated its original order granting summary judgment. Thereafter, on December 18, 2015, the County filed its final notice of appeal with this Court.

¶ 10. On appeal, the County raises nine issues, which we have reorganized into the following four issues for the sake of clarity:

I. Whether House Bill 1002 is unconstitutional.
II. Whether the current Tunica County Board of Supervisors is bound by House Bill 1002.
III. Whether the circuit court erred in granting the Town's motion for summary judgment.
IV. Whether the circuit court erred in awarding attorney's fees and interest to the defendants.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11. It is well-settled that a trial court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Jones Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue , 111 So.3d 588, 608 (Miss. 2013) (collecting citations). Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This Court must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the movant bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Hooker v. Greer , 81 So.3d 1103, 1108 (Miss. 2012) (citing Waggoner v. Williamson , 8 So.3d 147, 152 (Miss. 2009) ). In addition, a trial court's rulings concerning the constitutionality of a statute are reviewed de novo. Oxford Asset Partners, LLC v. City of Oxford , 970 So.2d 116, 120 (Miss. 2007). The trial court's grant of attorney's fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Tupelo Redevelopment Agency v. Gray Corp., Inc. , 972 So.2d 495, 518 (Miss. 2007).

DISCUSSION
I. Whether House Bill 1002 is unconstitutional.

¶ 12. The County's primary argument on appeal is that the distribution requirements contained in House Bill 1002 violate various provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Mississippi Constitution. As the party challenging the constitutionality...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Hutto v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • May 11, 2017
  • Ward v. Colom
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 7, 2018
    ...¶ 16. Courts must enforce the law "unless it appears beyond all reasonable doubt to violate the Constitution." Tunica Cty. v. Town of Tunica , 227 So.3d 1007, 1015 (Miss. 2017) (quoting Pathfinder Coach Div. of Superior Coach Corp. v. Cottrell , 216 Miss. 358, 62 So.2d 383, 385 (Miss. 1953)......
  • Hall v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • August 29, 2023
    ... ... Tunica ... Tunica County v. Town ... ...
  • Mar-Jac Poultry MS, LLC v. Love
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 13, 2019
    ...Adams was not authorized or in furtherance of Cinemark's business."), superseded by rule as recognized in Tunica Cty. v. Town of Tunica , 227 So. 3d 1007, 1026-27 (Miss. 2017).¶33. Carter submitted an affidavit stating that he typically transported both Love and Wilks to work. He stated tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT