Wilson v. City of Greenville
| Decision Date | 06 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-CA-00316-COA |
| Parties | DELANDO WILSON APPELLANT v. CITY OF GREENVILLE APPELLEE |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/12/2021
WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. MARGARET CAREY-McCRAY TRIAL JUDGE:
BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE AND McCARTY, JJ.
¶1. This matter comes before this Court as the consolidation of two cases on appeal. In Appellate Case No. 2021-CA-00316-COA the Washington County Circuit Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Delando Wilson's untimely appeal of the Greenville City Council's decision to accept and enforce his resignation as the police chief. In Appellate Case No. 2021-CA-00518-COA, the circuit court granted the City of Greenville's replevin action for city equipment in Wilson's possession. The circuit court also denied Wilson's counterclaim, motion to dismiss, and motion to stay the replevin action pending the outcome of his first appeal. Finding no error, we affirm in both cases.
¶2. On August 4, 2015, Wilson was appointed police chief for the City of Greenville. He was reappointed in January 2016, January 2018, and February 2020. His last appointment-in February 2020-was for a two-year term. On the first and third Tuesday of each month, regular board meetings were held for general city business. During a January 5, 2021 city council meeting, Wilson informed the mayor and the City Council (collectively "the City") that he was "considering resigning." According to Wilson's statement, he did not resign or submit a letter of resignation. However, the City interpreted Wilson as though he had given an oral resignation. The City voted unanimously to accept it and begin the transition to a different police chief.
¶3. Shortly after the January 5 meeting, Wilson and other city officials met to discuss transition plans. However, on January 15, 2021, Wilson retained Attorney Renetha Frieson to represent him. During the next city council meeting, held on January 19, 2021, Wilson attended and informed the City that he was not resigning. The City treated Wilson's announcement as a request to reconsider the City's January 5 order accepting his resignation. The City denied Wilson's request and set January 31, 2021, as the effective date of the end of Wilson's employment. According to Wilson, at no point during the January 19 meeting did the City inform him that it had entered a January 5, 2021 order accepting what it interpreted to be his resignation.
¶4. On February 4, 2021, in the Washington County Circuit Court, Wilson filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the City from enforcing its January 5, 2021 order accepting his alleged resignation and its January 19, 2021 order purporting to accept his "notice" of resignation.[1] The matter was set for a trial on February 9, 2021, and after hearing argument from the City regarding the original January 5 minutes, the circuit court recessed with the City representing that it would produce the original signed and certified copy of the January 5 minutes containing the purported order. However, the City was unable to produce the requested document. The trial resumed on February 10, 2021, but before further argument, the circuit court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because Wilson had not filed a timely notice of appeal.
¶5. On February 12, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Wilson filed a motion for reconsideration or to alter or amend the judgment. On March 16, 2021, the court entered an order denying Wilson's post-trial motion. Wilson appealed.
¶6. Three days after Wilson appealed from the court's order of dismissal, the City filed a replevin action in the circuit court to recover the City's property in Wilson's possession. Wilson responded with a counterclaim and a motion to dismiss the replevin action. Wilson's counterclaim and motion to dismiss were both premised on his assertion that the City had no authority to enforce a resignation he had not offered. Shortly after, Wilson filed a motion to stay the replevin proceedings pending the outcome of his pending appeal. The circuit court granted the City's replevin action and denied Wilson's counterclaim and motions. Wilson appealed, and the Mississippi Supreme Court, on Wilson's motion, consolidated the two appeals before assigning them to this Court.
¶7. "When the appellate court reviews a decision by a circuit court concerning an agency action, it applies the same standard of review that the lower courts are bound to follow." Carroll v. City of Canton, 296 So.3d 751, 756-57 (¶16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Miss. Sierra Club Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Env't Quality, 819 So.2d 515, 519 (¶15) (Miss. 2002)). "Decisions by the governing authorities of a municipality are subject to limited review and will be overturned only if the decision (1) was beyond its scope or power; (2) violated the constitutional or statutory rights of the aggrieved party; (3) was not supported by substantial evidence; or (4) was arbitrary or capricious." Id. at 757 (¶16) (quoting Jones v. City of Canton, 278 So.3d 1129, 1131 (¶7) (Miss. 2019)). Questions of law, including matters of jurisdiction, are reviewed de novo." Id. (citing City of Jackson v. Allen, 242 So.3d 8, 13 (¶17) (Miss. 2019), superseded by statute on other grounds as noted in Am. Tower Asset Sub LLC v. Marshal County, 324 So.3d 300, 302-03 (¶¶11-12) (Miss. 2021)).
¶8. Wilson claims that the circuit court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction because he failed to timely challenge his removal by the city council. However, Wilson admits that his claim may be considered moot, because his last two-year appointment expired on February 20, 2022. Nevertheless, he urges this Court to consider his claim due to the impact that it may have on future cases. Parker v. Parker, 980 So.2d 323, 326 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
¶9. Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-75 (Rev. 2019) governs appeals from decisions by municipal authorities. See Am. Tower, 324 So.3d at 302-03 (¶12) ("[A]n aggrieved party may appeal a decision of the board of supervisors by filing a notice of appeal."). Section 11-51-75 provides in relevant part:
Any person aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the board of supervisors of a county, or the governing authority of a municipality, may appeal the judgment or decision to the circuit court of the county in which the board of supervisors is the governing body or in which the municipality is located. A written notice of appeal to the circuit court must be filed with the circuit clerk within ten (10) days from the date at which session of the board of supervisors or the governing authority of the municipality rendered the judgment or decision. Upon filing, a copy of the notice of appeal must be delivered to the president of the board of supervisors or to the mayor or city clerk of the municipality and, if applicable, to any party who was a petitioner before the board of supervisors or the governing authority of the municipality.
¶10. In regard to the ten-day deadline set in section 11-51-75, our supreme court has stated:
The ten-day statutory limit in which to appeal a decision rendered by municipal authorities is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Thence, when an appeal of a decision rendered by municipal authorities is not perfected within the statutory time constraint of ten days, no jurisdiction is conferred upon the appellate court, i.e., the circuit court.
Bailey, 322 So.3d at 482 (¶12) (quoting City of Jackson v. Jordan, 202 So.3d 199, 203 (¶9) (Miss. 2016)).
¶11. The City rendered its order on January 5, 2021, and reaffirmed its order on January 19, 2021. Wilson filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for a temporary restraining order on February 4, 2021. He missed the ten-day deadline to challenge the City's January 5 and January 19 orders. The circuit court reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed Wilson's motions.
¶12. Wilson asserts that he was unable to timely appeal the City's orders because he had no notice or knowledge of the hearings and the resulting orders. He thus concludes that an appeal contemplated by section 11-51-75 was not his exclusive remedy. He argues that the circuit court was required to hear the matter de novo. In response, the City contends that Wilson had ample notice, an opportunity to participate during the meetings, and knowledge of the results of the proceedings, so he was able to comply with the ten-day deadline in section of 11-51-75.
¶13. Before addressing Wilson's inadequate-notice argument, we first note that Wilson only sought to prevent the City from dismissing him from office. In Bailey v. Jefferson County Board of Supervisors, 622 So.3d 479, 482 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2021), the appellant asserted that he did not receive notice of the proceedings; therefore, he could not meet the deadline in section 11-51-75. There was only one letter sent requesting the appellant's presence which was sent approximately eighteen months before the board ultimately removed appellant from office. Id. This Court found that the notice was insufficient. Id. The appellant acknowledged that he could not be restored to his position; however, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial