City of D'Iberville, Mississippi v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMay 21, 2010
Docket2010-AN-01050-SCT
StatusPublished

This text of City of D'Iberville, Mississippi v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi (City of D'Iberville, Mississippi v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of D'Iberville, Mississippi v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, (Mich. 2010).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2010-AN-01050-SCT

CONSOLIDATED WITH

NO. 2010-AN-01999-SCT

IN THE MATTER OF THE ENLARGING, EXTENDING AND DEFINING THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF BILOXI, HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI: CITY OF D’IBERVILLE, MISSISSIPPI

v.

CITY OF BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI AND HARRISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/21/2010 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. THOMAS L. ZEBERT COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JERRY L. MILLS JOHN PRESTON SCANLON W. FRED HORNSBY, III WALTER L. NIXON, JR. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: J. CHADWICK MASK JAMES L. CARROLL CLIFTON MICHAEL DECKER RONALD G. PERESICH GINA BARDWELL TOMPKINS TIM C. HOLLEMAN PATRICK TAYLOR GUILD NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/21/2013 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

EN BANC. KING, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. In this case consolidating the competing annexation petitions of Biloxi and

D’Iberville, the chancellor ultimately awarded each city a reduced area from that requested.

He determined that it was unreasonable for either city to annex the entire area requested, and

then determined that it was reasonable to award each city a smaller, reduced area. Both cities

appeal this decision, and Biloxi raises jurisdictional issues for the first time on appeal.

Because Biloxi is raising personal jurisdiction on behalf of third parties, and because Biloxi

failed to raise this issue at the trial-court level, we find that Biloxi not only lacks standing to

raise this issue, it also waived it. Further, because the chancellor’s decision awarding each

city a reduced area is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the

annexations as modified by the chancellor.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. On August 17, 2007, the City of Biloxi filed a petition to enlarge its boundaries via

annexation of approximately 11.2 square miles of Harrison County, the Proposed Annexation

Area (“PAA”). Biloxi’s City Council had passed its ordinance authorizing the same on

August 7, 2007. D’Iberville filed its petition to enlarge its boundaries via annexation of

essentially the same area on September 12, 2007, pursuant to an August 21, 2007, ordinance

of its City Council. Harrison County objected to both petitions. All of the Harrison County

chancellors recused themselves, and in November 2007, this Court appointed Thomas Zebert

as Special Judge to preside over the case. The cases were consolidated on November 8,

2007. A scheduling order was entered on June 6, 2008, ordering the parties to “file all

2 dispositive motions and motions challenging jurisdiction by June 16, 2008.” The court held

the trial over twenty-three nonconsecutive days from May to September 2009.

¶3. The chancellor, in a comprehensive 133-page opinion, divided the PAA into three

pieces. He found that it was not reasonable for either city to annex the entire PAA, thus

leaving a portion to remain as unincorporated Harrison County. He concluded that “such

property excluded by the Court is unreasonable and is not required by public convenience

and necessity and therefore is excluded.” Of the remaining area, the chancellor essentially

divided it in half, giving Biloxi an area adjacent to Biloxi (deemed the “Biloxi Critical

Area”), and giving D’Iberville an area adjacent to it (referred to hereinafter as the D’Iberville

Annexation Area, or “DAA”). The DAA includes the new D’Iberville High School. Each

city received approximately 2.5 square miles. The chancellor determined that each city

needed this land because, among other reasons, Hurricane Katrina “caused a tremendous loss

of usable real estate both in Biloxi and D’Iberville.” He concluded that both municipalities

“have proven by the totality of the circumstances by analyzing the testimony, viewing the

property in question and finding that each municipality has successfully proven the degree

of reasonableness necessary and that such proof was credible to reflect that the public

convenience as a necessity will be served by such granting of the PAA as reduced by the

court.”

¶4. D’Iberville appeals, arguing that it was unreasonable to award Biloxi any of the area,

and that the chancellor should have awarded the entire PAA to D’Iberville. Biloxi cross-

appeals, arguing that the chancellor should have awarded the entire PAA to Biloxi, and also

raising for the first time the issue that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over D’Iberville’s

3 petition due to inadequate proof it had satisfied its statutory publication requirement.

Harrison County does not appeal, and asks this Court to affirm the chancellor’s ultimate

determination.

ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review

¶5. “Annexation is a legislative affair. The judicial function is limited to the question of

whether the annexation is reasonable.” 1 City of Jackson v. Byram Incorporators, 16 So. 3d

662, 683 (Miss. 2009) (internal quotations and alterations omitted). The only determinations

that the court has the power to make are whether the annexation is reasonable or

unreasonable and whether it should be reduced. Id. This Court reviews the chancellor’s

determination of reasonableness for manifest error. Id. at 682-83. This Court will reverse

only where the chancellor applies an incorrect legal standard, is manifestly wrong, or his

findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 682. “Even where the credible

evidence is conflicting, this Court will not reverse unless the chancellor’s findings are

1 Statute provides that the chancellor is to approve the annexation if he finds from the evidence that it “is reasonable and is required by the public convenience and necessity.” Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (Rev. 2007). As it relates to the municipality, the determination of public convenience and necessity is legislative. See In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Meridian, 115 So. 2d 323, 328 (Miss. 1959); In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Brookhaven, 65 So. 2d 832, 833 (Miss. 1953). “The adoption of the ordinance is itself a finding of public necessity and convenience by the governing authorities.” City of Jackson v. Town of Flowood, 331 So. 2d 909, 911 (Miss. 1976). Further, “[i]n determining ‘reasonableness,’ the court must consider the proposal in light of the area as a whole, considering the concern of both the city and the landowners.” In re Extension of Corp. Boundaries of the Town of Mantachie, 685 So. 2d 724, 727 (Miss. 1996). Thus, a determination of reasonableness necessarily encompasses an analysis of the public necessity and convenience of an annexation.

4 manifestly wrong.” Id. at 682-83 (internal quotations omitted); see also In re Enlargement

and Extension of the Municipal Boundaries of the City of D’Iberville, 867 So. 2d 241, 248

(Miss. 2004) (noting that “[f]indings 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bowie v. Montfort Jones Memorial Hosp.
861 So. 2d 1037 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2003)
Guaranty Nat. Ins. Co. v. Pittman
501 So. 2d 377 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1987)
Edwards v. Harrison County Board of Supervisors
22 So. 3d 268 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2009)
City of Jackson v. Byram Incorporators
16 So. 3d 662 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2009)
Norwood v. EXT. OF BOUNDARIES OF ITTA BENA
788 So. 2d 747 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2001)
City of Jackson v. Town of Flowood
331 So. 2d 909 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1976)
Myrick v. INCORP. OF DESIGNATED AREA MUN. CORP. TO BE NAMED STRINGER
336 So. 2d 209 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1976)
Jones v. Chandler
592 So. 2d 966 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1991)
Esco v. Scott
735 So. 2d 1002 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1999)
In Re City of Clinton
920 So. 2d 452 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2006)
In Re Corp. Boundaries of Mantachie
685 So. 2d 724 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1996)
In Re Enlargement and Extension of Boundaries of City of MacOn
854 So. 2d 1029 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2003)
Smith v. City of Meridian
115 So. 2d 323 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1959)
In Re the Interest of M.I.
85 So. 3d 856 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2012)
In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Tupelo v. City of Tupelo
94 So. 3d 256 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
City of D'Iberville, Mississippi v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-diberville-mississippi-v-city-of-biloxi-mi-miss-2010.