Enlarging, Extending & Defining the Corporate Limits & Boundaries of Biloxi v. City of Biloxi

109 So. 3d 529, 2013 WL 1150194, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 74
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 21, 2013
DocketNos. 2010-AN-01050-SCT, 2010-AN-01999-SCT
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 109 So. 3d 529 (Enlarging, Extending & Defining the Corporate Limits & Boundaries of Biloxi v. City of Biloxi) 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
Enlarging, Extending & Defining the Corporate Limits & Boundaries of Biloxi v. City of Biloxi, 109 So. 3d 529, 2013 WL 1150194, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 74 (Mich. 2013).

Opinion

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 dis-positive 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 [537]*537have awarded the entire PAA to D’Iber-ville. 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 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 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 “[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.” (internal quotations omitted)).

¶ 6. To annex territory, a municipality must adopt an ordinance regarding its desired enlargement. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-27 (Rev.2007). It must then file a petition in chancery court, and when a hearing is set on such petition, it must give notice of the hearing to interested parties by posting, publication, and personal service. Miss.Code Ann. §§ 21-1-15, 21-1-29, 21-1-31 (Rev.2007). The municipality then bears the burden at trial of proving that its proposed annexation is reasonable. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-33 (Rev.2007).

II. Jurisdiction

¶ 7. Jurisdiction is a question of law, and we review it de novo. In re M.I., 85 So.3d 856, 857 (Miss.2012).

¶ 8. Biloxi argues for the first time on appeal that D’Iberville did not provide proper proof of publication, thus, the chancery court lacked jurisdiction over D’Iber-ville’s annexation petition. D’Iberville argues that Biloxi waived this issue by failing to raise it at the trial-court level and in [538]*538accordance with the court’s scheduling order and that notice by publication was actually accomplished, as D’Iberville had made the simple mistake of filing the wrong proof of publication with the trial court. D’Iberville attaches the correct proof of publication to its reply brief, but Biloxi contends that this Court cannot consider it, as it is outside the record.

¶ 9. Upon filing a petition to enlarge its boundaries and upon the court setting a hearing on the petition, a municipality must give notice of the hearing pursuant to Section 21-1-15 of the Mississippi Code. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-31 (Rev. 2007). The required notice includes notice by publication, posting, and personal service. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-15 (Rev. 2007).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 So. 3d 529, 2013 WL 1150194, 2013 Miss. LEXIS 74, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enlarging-extending-defining-the-corporate-limits-boundaries-of-biloxi-miss-2013.