IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2024-AN-00749-SCT
IN THE MATTER OF THE ENLARGING, EXTENDING AND DEFINING THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF OLIVE BRANCH, DESOTO COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI: THE CITY OF OLIVE BRANCH, MISSISSIPPI
v.
PEGGY DOBBINS ET AL.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/29/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. PERCY L. LYNCHARD, JR. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: BRYAN EDWARD DYE J. CHADWICK MASK JACOB THOMAS EVANS STUTZMAN CHARLES GREGORY DAVIS STEVEN W. PITTMAN ANTHONY E. NOWAK COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: DESOTO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: J. CHADWICK MASK BRYAN EDWARD DYE JACOB THOMAS EVANS STUTZMAN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: CHARLES GREGORY DAVIS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES & ANNEXATION DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 02/26/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
EN BANC.
ISHEE, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This appeal arises from the DeSoto County Chancery Court’s order denying the
petition of the City of Olive Branch (the City) to annex two parcels of land identified as Tract
2 and Tract 3. After conducting a thorough analysis, the chancery court held that the annexation was unreasonable. Upon review of the record, we find that the chancery court’s
decision is supported by substantial credible evidence, and we affirm the chancery court’s
judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. The City incorporated in 1874. Its boundaries were enlarged in 1990 to the Tennessee
state line, in 1996 west to Malone Road and south to Church Road, and in 1998 and 2015
through smaller industrial annexations. The City’s largest expansion occurred in 2021, when
18.8 square miles were annexed following a petition filed in 2018. Tracts 2 and 3 were
included in the petition but were excluded from the final 2021 decree.
¶3. On December 22, 2022, the City’s Board of Aldermen adopted an annexation
ordinance for Tracts 2 and 3. The ordinance described the land, attached maps and plats, and
listed proposed municipal services as required by Mississippi Code Section 21-1-27(1)
(Supp. 2025). The City filed its Complaint in the Nature of a Petition the same day.1
Statutory requirements for notice and service were satisfied.
¶4. Tract 2 consists of about eighty acres at the intersection of Pleasant Hill Road and
Laughter Road owned by the Bridgforth family. Their land was split between the City and
unincorporated county territory after the 2021 decree. Tract 3 encompasses land around the
Laughter Road/Interstate-269 interchange. The Bridgforth family owns the southern portion,
and the Funderburk family owns the northern portion. Both tracts are vacant and
1 On or about June 7, 2023, the City filed a supplemental petition regarding Tract 1. The chancery court consolidated both petitions and ultimately approved the annexation of Tract 1. Tract 1 is not at issue on appeal.
2 uninhabited.
¶5. The trial occurred on February 12 and 13, 2024. The City presented evidence and
testimony from eight witnesses regarding Tract 2 and Tract 3, including the landowners.
Two witnesses testified in opposition to the annexation.
A. Witness Testimony for the City
¶6. Barry Bridgforth testified that he is a real-estate developer and manages the property
in Tract 2 on behalf of his family. Bridgforth testified that he approached the City about
annexation because he wanted the “full spectrum” of City services for any future
development. He acknowledged, however, that development was still in planning stages and
that no specific projects were underway. He further acknowledged that the City can provide
water, gas, and sewer services without annexation. Bridgforth also testified about Tract 3.
Bridgforth testified that the property was originally intended for development as a Love’s
Truck Stop, but the project did not proceed due to zoning restrictions. Specifically, the
DeSoto County Board of Supervisors approved conditional zoning for the site but imposed
restrictions that excluded filling stations with showers or sleeping accommodations,
effectively prohibiting overnight truck stops.
¶7. Laney Funderburk testified that his family requested annexation of Tract 3 north of
Interstate 269. He explained annexation was sought for future access to fire protection and
utilities. When asked about his intentions to develop the area, Funderburk responded, “I
really have no idea. I’ve got no plans for that . . . at this time.”
¶8. Mayor Ken Adams testified that the annexation ordinance was adopted in response
3 to the landowners’ petitions. He emphasized that the City had not engaged in rezoning
discussions and that the request originated with the Bridgforth and Funderburk families.
¶9. Vince Malavasi, a licensed professional engineer, testified that the City remained on
schedule to implement utility services promised in the 2021 decree. He explained that the
City’s existing infrastructure could support Tracts 2 and 3 without new facilities.
¶10. Ty Windham of the Mississippi State Rating Bureau testified about the City’s fire
protection. He noted the City held a Class 4 fire rating, which is superior to the tracts’ Class
6 rating. Windham also testified that the fire department could serve the annexation areas
with current stations and equipment.
¶11. Jason May, the City’s chief financial officer, testified regarding the City’s financial
capacity. He described revenues, expenditures, and debt service, explaining the City was
fulfilling 2021 annexation commitments and had resources to extend services. At the
conclusion of his testimony, May stated that the City has the financial ability to provide
municipal services and improvements in Tract 2 and Tract 3.
¶12. Police Chief William Cox testified regarding the police department’s manpower and
equipment. Officer Cox further testified that his department was capable of serving Tract
2 and Tract 3.
¶13. Michael Slaughter testified as an expert in the fields of urban and regional planning
and civil engineering. He reviewed population data, traffic counts, and growth patterns, and
opined that the annexation was reasonable when considering the totality of the circumstances.
He acknowledged, however, that “the need for developable land is not a big issue” in this
4 case and that growth in the City had slowed since 2020.
B. Witness Testimony for the Objectors
¶14. Siblings Peggy and Ernest Dobbins testified that they own land across from Tract 3.
Peggy testified she had lived there for seventy-two years. She also testified that she was
pleased with the services from the Bridgetown Fire Department and the DeSoto County
Sheriff’s Department. Peggy expressed her concern that annexation might lead to rezoning
for a truck stop. Ernest similarly testified that he was concerned about potential rezoning
because he did not want to live near a truck stop.
C. The Chancery Court’s Decision
¶15. The chancery court denied annexation on May 29, 2024. The court analyzed the
twelve indicia of reasonableness and listed four specific reasons for finding the annexation
unreasonable: (1) development plans were “unknown and speculative”; (2) annexation risked
“jurisdictional confusion”; (3) the Bridgforth request may have been motivated by rezoning
interests; and (4) Tracts 2 and 3 had been denied annexation in 2021. The court referenced
its 2021 opinion, which had been stipulated into evidence as Exhibit 6. Portions of the 2024
opinion included statements applicable to 2021 annexation but not the 2024 annexation, such
as references to inhabited areas and participation of other municipalities. On June 20, 2024,
the City filed its Notice of Appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶16. This Court’s review of annexation is limited to determining whether the annexation
is reasonable. City of Petal v. Gulf S. Pipeline Co., LP (In re City of Petal), 301 So. 3d 591,
5 598 (Miss. 2020). It may only reverse the chancery court’s findings as to the reasonableness
of an annexation if the chancellor’s decision is manifestly wrong and/or not supported by
substantial and credible evidence. City of Jackson v. City of Madison (In re City of
Madison), 650 So. 2d 490, 495 (Miss. 1995). Further, “[w]here there is conflicting, credible
evidence, we defer to the findings below.” Bassett v. Town ofTaylorsville, 542 So. 2d 918,
921 (Miss. 1989) (citing McElhaney v. City of Horn Lake (In re City of Horn Lake), 501
So. 2d 401, 403 (Miss. 1987); In re City of Moss Point v. Sherman, 492 So. 2d 289, 290
(Miss. 1986); Liddell v. Jones, 482 So. 2d 1131 (Miss. 1986); Hans v. Hans, 482 So. 2d
1117 (Miss. 1986)). “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.” Id. (citing In re City of Horn Lake,
501 So. 2d at 403; Wise v. City of Biloxi (In re City of Biloxi), 361 So. 2d 1372, 1376 (Miss.
1978); City of Picayune v. Quick & Grice, Inc., 238 Miss. 429, 117 So. 2d 718 (1960).
“We only reverse where the [c]hancery [c]ourt has employed erroneous legal standards or
where we are left with a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id.
¶17. The City has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the annexation. Lee v. City
of Biloxi (In re City of Biloxi), 744 So. 2d 270, 277 (Miss. 1999). Reasonableness is
determined by twelve factors:
(1) the municipality’s need to expand, (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city, (3) potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the annexed areas, (4) the municipality’s financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised, (5) need for zoning and overall planning in the area, (6) need for municipal services in the area sought to be annexed, (7)
6 whether there are natural barriers between the city and the proposed annexation area, (8) past performance and time element involved in the city’s provision of services to its present residents, (9) economic or other impact of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the proposed annexation area, (10) impact of annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups, (11) whether the property owners or other inhabitants of the areas sought to be annexed have in the past, and in the foreseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy economic and social benefits of the municipality without paying their fair share of taxes, and (12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness.
City of Saltillo v. City of Tupelo (In re City of Tupelo), 94 So. 3d 256, 266-67 (Miss. 2012)
(quoting City of Horn Lake v. City of Southaven (In re City of Southaven), 5 So. 3d 375,
376-77 (Miss. 2009)). “These factors ‘must be considered collectively to determine whether,
under the totality of the circumstances, annexation was reasonable.’” In re City of Petal, 301
So. 3d at 599 (quoting Wilson v. Town of Terry (In re Town of Terry), 227 So. 3d 917, 919
(Miss. 2017)).
DISCUSSION
¶18. On appeal, the City contends the chancery court reached conclusions contrary to the
overwhelming weight of the evidence, improperly applied res judicata principles, and
improperly considered timing in relation to the 2021 annexation. The objectors respond that
the court expressly disclaimed applying res judicata, acted within its authority in assessing
reasonableness, and based its decision on substantial evidence under the twelve indicia.
Each argument is addressed in turn below.
1. Whether the chancery court erred by finding the annexation unreasonable.
¶19. After considering all the evidence presented, the chancellor must determine whether
7 the proposed annexation is reasonable as required by Mississippi Code Section 21-1-33
(Supp. 2025). Pursuant to that statute, the chancellor also has the discretion to grant partial
approval of the annexation, excluding any portion of the land proposed for annexation if
deemed appropriate. Gousset v. City of Macon (In re City of Macon), 854 So. 2d 1029,
1034 (Miss. 2003). “It is within the prerogative of the chancellor to accept or reject the
testimony of any witness, to consider all facts not in dispute, and to make his decision
accordingly.” In re City of Southaven, 5 So. 3d at 380 (citing In re City of Laurel, 922 So.
2d 791, 798 (Miss. 2006)).
¶20. As stated above, the chancery court considers twelve factors in determining the
reasonableness of annexation under the totality of circumstances. Here, the court found that
four factors favored the City.2 The City challenges the court’s findings as to the remaining
eight factors, which are discussed below.
A. Need to Expand
¶21. When determining a city’s need for expansion, the chancery court must consider many
subfactors, including:
(1) spillover development into the proposed annexation area; (2) the city’s internal growth; (3) the city’s population growth; (4) the city’s need for development land; (5) the need for planning in the annexation area; (6) increased traffic counts; (7) the need to maintain and expand the city’s tax base; (8) limitations due to geography and surrounding cities; (9) remaining vacant land within the municipality; (10) environmental influences; (11) the
2 These four factors were: (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the City; (4) the municipality’s financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised; (7) whether there are natural barriers between the City and the proposed annexation area; and (8) past performance and time element involved in the City’s provision of services to its present residents.
8 city’s need to exercise control over the proposed annexation area; and (12) increased new building permit activity.
Neal v. City of Winona (In re City of Winona), 879 So. 2d 966, 974 (Miss. 2004) (quoting
In re City of Macon, 854 So. 2d at 1034).
¶22. The record shows that the City most recently annexed 18.8 square miles in 2021. The
City is indeed experiencing internal growth, as evidenced by its building permits and traffic-
count data. The City’s evidence, including the testimony of Mayor Adams, suggests a
slowdown in internal growth. Since 2020, Olive Branch has seen a decline in permits issued
for new homes despite the City’s 2021 annexation.
¶23. Further, the City offered no proof that it needed any more land than what the Court
awarded in 2021. In fact, Slaughter, the city’s urban-planning expert admitted “the need for
developable land is not a big issue in this case.” He also later testified, “It’s not about
needing vacant land.” Slaughter testified that, in his opinion, this factor is not a major issue
here because the landowners asked the City to annex their land. The City additionally
presented testimony emphasizing the importance of having vacant land within its limits to
ensure development followed its own rules and regulations; however, no evidence indicated
that DeSoto County’s regulations were insufficient. On the contrary, Bridgforth testified that
his land had developed successfully while being in the county. He also stated that his land
drew potential commercial developments despite not having City services.
¶24. The chancery court found that Tract 2 and Tract 3 were totally vacant tracts and
devoid of any residents or development. Thus, Tracts 2 and 3 could not be classified as
spillover development. The court recognized that the City had maintained a robust growth
9 (similar to the county) but found that the internal growth since the last annexation was
speculative. The court further noted that the evidence indicated a decline in residential
building permits over the past three years. Regarding the city’s need for developable land,
the court stated that City’s own expert admitted that the City does not need more vacant,
developable land and that DeSoto County has a good zoning and planning department. As
for the remaining vacant land within the City, the court noted that “there are hundreds, if not
thousands of acres of vacant land within the municipality, courtesy of the City’s aggressive
annexation of 2021.” For these reasons, the court found that this factor did not favor
annexation.
¶25. The City argues that the court’s decision includes misconceptions of the facts and the
law. For example, the City claims that the court improperly based its finding that there is no
need to expand on the fact that the land the City sought consists of “totally vacant tracts . . .
of any residents or development.” See In re City of Southaven, 5 So. 3d at 378 (holding that
“we assess the municipality’s need to expand, which is independent of the character of the
land sought to be annexed”). We note, however, that the chancellor relied on this fact as a
reason why he found no spillover development in the proposed annexation area. To support
its position, the City points to Slaughter’s testimony regarding spillover development, which
discussed development in close proximity to Tract 2 and Tract 3. But the evidence did not
show any encroachment of development into the annexation area.
¶26. The City also argues that the chancery court erred by failing to mention evidence
demonstrating increased traffic counts. For reference, Slaughter prepared an exhibit
10 demonstrating increased traffic counts at locations in the City and near each respective tract
from 2012 to 2022. Although the chancellor did not specifically cite all twelve subfactors,
his findings in this area considered the City’s need for land, the remaining vacant land within
the municipality, spillover development, the City’s need for developmental land, the City’s
internal growth, the City’s need to exercise control over the proposed annexation area, and
increased new-building-permit activity. In addition, witnesses at the hearing testified as to
the twelve subfactors. In reviewing the record, we find that chancery court’s finding that this
factor did not favor the City was based on substantial credible evidence and was not
manifestly wrong.
B. Potential Health Hazards
¶27. In addressing this indicium of reasonableness, this Court has indicated that the
following subfactors must be considered in determining this factor: “(1) potential health
hazards from sewage and waste disposal; (2) a large number of septic tanks in the area; (3)
soil conditions which are not conducive to on-site septic systems; (4) open dumping of
garbage; and (5) standing water and sewage.” In re City of Winona, 879 So. 2d at 979
(quoting In re City of Macon, 854 So. 2d at 1038). Here, the chancery court found that all
of the tracts sought to be annexed were vacant lots with no evidence of standing water,
sewage, or septic tanks.
¶28. The City presented testimony concerning the landowners’ anticipated plans to develop
their properties. Bridgforth testified that he plans eventually to develop Tract 2 as a single-
family residential area. Slaughter testified that it is preferable from a health-hazard
11 standpoint for residential developments in urban and urbanizing areas such as DeSoto County
to develop on centralized sewer such as that offered by the City as opposed to using septic
tanks. The Court also heard testimony from Bridgforth regarding the property the Bridgforth
family owns in Tract 3 south of Interstate 269. A large portion of that property is zoned C-2
with restrictions. Permitted uses include developments such as hotels, restaurants, service
stations, and retail stores.
¶29. The City offered no evidence of open dumping, standing water, or standing sewage.
The City did offer evidence within the area to be annexed demonstrating that soil conditions
are generally not well suited to accommodate septic tanks. Specifically, Slaughter opined
that because the soil in the area is not suitable for septic tanks and since using septic systems
would prevent the property from reaching its highest development potential, this factor
weights in favor of annexation.
¶30. The record shows that sewer lines are already available to both tracts according to the
City’s engineer and that each could be developed without annexing the area. Further, the
City is not planning to add any sewer lines to serve the tracts being annexed. The evidence
provides no indication or suggestion that the tracts proposed for annexation would rely on
septic systems or any other type of on-site sewage solution for development.
¶31. The chancery court found that all of the tracts sought to be annexed were vacant lots
with no evidence of standing water, sewage, or septic tanks. The court additionally found
that although the soil is clearly unsuitable for septic systems, the City had resolved this issue
by fulfilling its responsibility as the certified provider of sewage services. Thus, the court
12 found this indicium was at best neutral toward the reasonableness of annexation. We find that
the chancery court’s findings are supported by substantial credible evidence.
C. Need for Zoning and Planning
¶32. For this indicium, the City presented testimony from Slaughter, who evaluated the
need for building inspections, zoning and building ordinances, and zoning enforcement. He
also reviewed the City’s comprehensive plan, its zoning ordinance, as well as DeSoto
County’s zoning ordinance, zoning map, and comprehensive plan. After considering all of
this information, Slaughter admitted DeSoto County has good planning and zoning in place.
¶33. Bridgforth, whose family owns all of the property in Tract 2, testified his area needs
municipal regulations and land-use controls. Tract 2 was split by the City’s 2021 annexation.
Slaughter testified that, from a development standpoint, it is more efficient for a single
development to proceed under the same entity, as opposed to partly under the jurisdiction of
the City and partly under the jurisdiction of the county.
¶34. The chancery court found that the proposed annexation areas were encompassed
within DeSoto County’s comprehensive plan and determined that the area “does not call for
highly sophisticated planning.” The court noted that the comprehensive plan includes a fully
staffed planning department, planning commission, building inspectors, code enforcement
officers, and geographic information services. Accordingly, the court concluded that the
County’s comprehensive plan provided services equivalent to those at the municipal level
and that this factor weighed against annexation.
¶35. The City argues that the court erred by relying exclusively on evidence from the 2021
13 trial. The City admits that these findings are generally consistent with the evidence presented
at the 2021 trial but argues that none of these facts are in the record on appeal. As previously
noted, the 2021 opinion was stipulated into evidence during the 2024 trial. The 2021 decree
was never appealed, and neither party disputes the court’s findings.
¶36. “This Court gives chancellors a wide latitude of discretion in analyzing whether this
indicator weighs against annexation.” Poole v. City of Pearl (In re City of Pearl), 908 So.
2d 728, 739 (Miss. 2005). Here, the City presented no evidence indicating that DeSoto
County’s planning and zoning program was in any way unsuitable for the area proposed for
annexation. We find that it was not error for the chancery court to consider the 2021 opinion
previously stipulated into evidence and to rely on the county’s comprehensive plan to
conclude that this factor weighted against annexation. Testimony from the City’s own expert
further confirmed that the county has solid planning and zoning practices. For these reasons,
we find substantial credible evidence in the record supported the chancery court’s decision.
D. Need for Municipal Services
¶37. This Court has identified the following factors that the chancery court may evaluate
in determining the necessity of municipal services:
(l) requests for water and sewage services; (2) plan of the City to provide first response fire protection; (3) adequacy of existing fire protection; (4) plan of the City to provide police protection; (5) plan of City to provide increased solid waste collection; (6) use of septic tanks in the proposed annexation area; and (7) population density.
City of Jackson v. Byram Incorporators, 16 So. 3d 662, 687 (Miss. 2009) (citing In re City
of Winona, 879 So. 2d at 984).
14 ¶38. As previously stated, Tract 2 and Tract 3 are entirely vacant and undeveloped. Sewer
lines are already available to both tracts according to the City’s engineer, and each could be
developed without the necessity of annexation. Exhibit 90 shows that both tracts fall within
the City’s certificated water-service area, which obligates the City to provide service even
without annexation. Exhibit 91 shows that the City at present has water lines available to
both tracts.
¶39. Slaughter testified that City services are “important to allow for areas to develop as
its highest and best use, the proper densities, and to meet the services that development
demands once complete.” But the City offered little evidence regarding development plans
for Tract 2. Bridgforth testified that Watson Place Subdivision, lying immediately south of
Tract 2, “would eventually one day” expand into Tract 2. Notably, Watson Place Subdivision
successfully developed with county-level services. Tract 3 involves two owners; the portion
of Tract 3 lying north of Interstate 269 is the Funderburk property, and the southern portion
is the Bridgforth property.
¶40. In evaluating this factor, the chancery court noted that gas, water, and sewer services
are provided to the tracts regardless of their development. With respect to fire protection,
the court recognized that Tracts 2 and 3 are currently served by both the Bridgetown
Volunteer Fire Department and the City under an interlocal agreement requiring mutual aid
between the two entities. The court further noted that the Bridgetown fire station is
geographically closer to these tracts than the City’s station. Although the City has a Class
4 fire rating and operates a full-time, paid fire department, the court found that any economic
15 benefit from annexation remains speculative, particularly in light of the uncontroverted
testimony that Tracts 2 and 3 are vacant and lack any concrete development plans at this
time.
¶41. As part of its analysis, the court incorrectly stated that the proposed annexation
includes territory within a statutorily created fire-protection district that holds the exclusive
right, under Mississippi Code Section 19-5-175 (Rev. 2024), to provide fire protection within
its boundaries. The Bridgetown Volunteer Fire Department is a graded fire district, not a
statutorily created fire-protection district. Testimony established that this distinction means
the City would automatically obtain the legal authority to provide first-response fire
protection in the proposed annexation areas if annexed. The City argues that this
misstatement constituted manifest error. We disagree. Although the court misstated this
fact, it was not the linchpin of its conclusion on this subfactor. Instead, the court relied on
the existence of mutual-aid agreements between the fire departments and noted that, given
the minimal economic impact, little need appeared to exist for additional fire services beyond
those already available.
¶42. With respect to police protection, the Court noted that the municipality plans to
provide immediate police services to the proposed annexation area if the annexation is
approved. Based on the size and composition of the City’s police force, the court
acknowledged that the City’s police protection would, on its face, appear superior to that
offered by the county. But, as detailed in the court’s opinion from the 2021 annexation trial,
which was entered into evidence, the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Department is unique among
16 county law enforcement agencies because its resources and services are at least equivalent
to those typically provided by a municipal police department. The City contends that the
chancery court committed manifest error in making these findings, arguing that the
underlying evidence was not presented at the 2024 trial. The City stipulated to the admission
of the 2021 decree into evidence, however, and that decree contains factual findings on
which the court properly relied in evaluating this subfactor.
¶43. Finally, with regard to the issue of population density, the court reiterated that these
tracts are completely vacant and recognized that “[i]n sparsely populated areas, this Court has
found that ‘there is less of a need for immediate municipal services’ than densely populated
areas.” In re City of Winona, 879 So. 2d at 984 (quoting In re City of Macon, 854 So. 2d
at 1041-42). After analyzing all of the subfactors, the court found these areas were not in
need of the “full spectrum of City services” and therefore weighed this factor against
annexation. The chancellor’s findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the
record.
E. Economic Impact
¶44. In evaluating this factor, the chancery court must weigh the equities between the
City’s need for expansion and the potential benefits to residents from the annexation, while
also considering any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise, that the residents may
experience. City of Jackson v. City of Ridgeland (In re City of Jackson), 551 So. 2d 861,
868 (Miss. 1989). Though the residents of the proposed area of annexation will, if annexed,
be required to pay city taxes, that issue alone is insufficient to defeat annexation. Id.
17 ¶45. Here, the court found that in return for their tax money, the areas will not receive
proportionately better police or fire protection than they already receive from the county.
The court additionally found that the proposed areas of annexation will not receive additional
water, sewer, or gas services, as those have already been extended by the City under its
obligation within the certificated service areas. The court noted that planning and zoning
regulations will largely remain unchanged. Although the City has proposed the addition of
street lighting, a service not currently provided by the county, the court found that any
reduction in fire-insurance premiums is speculative at best, given the lack of concrete
development plans for Tracts 2 and 3. In balancing the burden of increased taxation against
the limited municipal services to be provided, the chancery court found the annexation to be
unreasonable and accordingly weighed this factor against annexation.
¶46. The City takes issue with the court’s findings regarding fire protection and police
protection. Further, the City argues that the court failed to take into account that the
landowners who requested annexation testified that they want to receive the full benefit of
City services, including police and fire. We find, however, that the chancery court’s decision
is supported by substantial credible evidence. As previously discussed, the City is already
obligated to provide water, gas, and sewer services, and the record shows that the county
provides quality fire protection and police protection to these areas.
F. Voting Strength
¶47. The City offered Exhibit 26 indicating both tracts sought to be annexed contained no
population. Slaughter opined that due to the lack of population, minority-voting strength was
18 not impacted and thus this factor supported annexation. This Court has found, however, that
when an annexation area is without any population, the protection-of-minority-voting
strength factor is rendered neutral. City of Horn Lake v. City of Southaven (In re City of
Southaven), 864 So. 2d 912, 925 (Miss. 2003). Thus, the chancery court found this factor
to be neutral as it relates to both tracts sought to be annexed. We find that the chancery court
appropriately followed this Court’s precedent and therefore did not commit manifest error.
G. Fair Share of Taxes
¶48. For this factor, the chancery court found that there are no residents in these proposed
areas of annexation to whom this indicium would apply. The court additionally found that
“there is no evidence that the existing owners likewise have enjoyed the economic or social
benefits of the City without paying their fair share of taxes.” The court therefore weighed
this factor against annexation.
¶49. “The value of this item as an indicator of reasonableness is questionable because it
is difficult to envision a situation where an individual’s ‘fair’ share of taxes is greater than
the amount required by law.” Robinson v. City of Columbus (In re City of Columbus), 644
So. 2d 1168, 1180 (Miss. 1994). Stronger here, the evidence established that the proposed
annexation area is completely vacant. Exhibit 44 is the existing land-use map for the
proposed area and indicates there are no habitable structures on either tract. Thus, these
areas currently lack a population to receive or benefit from City services or amenities. We
find that the chancellor did not commit manifest error by weighing this factor against
19 H. Other Factors
¶50. The court acknowledged the City’s argument that the property owners of both tracts
desired to be annexed and that such support should factor into the reasonableness analysis.
The court agreed that the preferences of landowners may be considered but clarified that such
preferences should carry no more weight than the objections of those opposing annexation.
According to the court, all landowners, either directly or through representatives, expressed
that their desire for annexation stemmed from a perceived need for municipal services. But
the court found that there was little, if anything, that the City could offer in terms of services
that were not already being provided by the county or by the City itself under existing
obligations in certificated areas.
¶51. The court noted that the owner of property south of Interstate-269 within Tract 3 had
expressed interest in future commercial development, but the Court found no evidence of
concrete or imminent plans. The Court further noted the objectors’ concern that the inclusion
of Tract 3 may have been a veiled attempt to circumvent the county’s zoning restrictions,
specifically, to allow the construction of a Love’s Truck Stop.
¶52. The evidence showed that while the county previously had rezoned approximately
sixty-five acres in Tract 3, it imposed conditional-use restrictions prohibiting showers and
overnight parking, which the owner initially accepted. After Love’s expressed interest in the
property contingent on those restrictions’ being lifted, however, the owner sought to remove
them. The county declined, resulting in the collapse of the deal. Although the owner denied
any ongoing effort to develop the property for Love’s, the court found that if annexed, the
20 owner could seek a zoning change through the City. The court recognized that the objectors,
who previously participated in the zoning process, would have no vote in the matter, as they
are not City residents. The court determined this to be a relevant factor in the overall
reasonableness analysis.
¶53. The Court also credited the objectors’ argument regarding the jurisdictional issues of
annexing Tracts 2 and 3. The court agreed that the only access roads, Pleasant Hill Road and
Laughter Road, require multiple crossings between City and county jurisdictions and would
create confusion for emergency response and complicate traffic enforcement. The City’s own
planning expert acknowledged that the jurisdictional boundaries would create opportunities
for “speed traps,” in which short stretches of City-controlled roadway could be radar
patrolled while surrounded by county territory. The court emphasized that, currently, travel
from the City to Tracts 2 and 3 requires repeatedly entering and exiting City and county
jurisdictions. The court noted that this type of fragmented access has previously been held
to weigh against annexation. See Wise v. City of Biloxi (In re City of Biloxi), 361 So. 2d
1372 (Miss. 1978). The chancellor implicitly questioned the credibility of the City’s
planning expert, Slaughter, by noting that his testimony had been thoroughly impeached due
to inconsistent statements he made in a prior case, Coahoma County v. City of Clarksdale
(In re City of Clarksdale), 267 So. 3d 236 (Miss. 2019).
¶54. Significantly, the court found here that it could not assess the reasonableness of the
current annexation petition without considering the annexation granted just nineteen months
earlier. The court stated that the 2021 annexation followed an eight-day trial, during which
21 the City argued for the need for additional land and faced opposition from numerous parties,
including local residents, DeSoto County, the Bridgetown Fire District, and the City of
Hernando. Following the trial, the court approved annexation of nearly twenty square miles,
while explicitly excluding Tracts 2 and 3. Despite the exclusion of those areas, neither the
City nor the landowners requested reconsideration. The court found no meaningful changes
since that time other than the landowners’ desire for annexation.
¶55. While recognizing that annexation petitions are not barred by res judicata and that
cities may seek annexation whenever they believe it to be reasonable, the court found it
appropriate to consider the recentness of the prior annexation and the City’s current
obligations under that decree in evaluating reasonableness. See In re City of Indianola, 226
Miss. 760, 85 So. 2d 212 (1956).
¶56. The court emphasized that the City is still in the midst of implementing the 2021 Plan
of Services, which covers nearly twenty square miles, approximately six thousand new
residents, and 2,300 homes. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the current annexation
request is speculative, lacks urgency, and appears to stretch the City’s resources beyond what
is now feasible. The Court expressed skepticism over the City’s motivation to take on
additional territory without having fully completed service implementation from the 2021
¶57. The City contends that the chancery court improperly applied principles of res judicata
by repeatedly referencing and relying on the 2021 annexation in evaluating the 2022 petition.
The court expressly acknowledged, however, that res judicata did not bar the City from
22 seeking annexation of Tracts 2 and 3 in the 2022 proceeding. We find no error in the court’s
consideration of the recent annexation history as part of its overall reasonableness analysis.
The prior annexation was appropriately viewed as one factor among many under the totality
of the circumstances and was not treated as dispositive.
2. Whether the chancery court committed reversible error by encroaching on the authority of the City’s board of aldermen to decide when to seek annexation.
¶58. The City argues that the chancery court improperly considered the timing between the
annexation petitions and, in doing so, applied an incorrect legal standard by “usurp[ing] the
exclusively legislative function of determining whether to pursue annexation . . . .” In re
City of Sardis, 954 So. 2d 434, 438 (Miss. 2007). The City specifically challenges the
chancellor’s closing remarks under factor twelve:
In the American South, and particularly in Mississippi, it is considered improper etiquette to ask for seconds during a meal without consuming the first serving. Perhaps this should be considered to some extent in municipal annexations as here.
¶59. While the City focuses on this analogy, the record makes clear that the chancellor
considered the 2021 annexation in conjunction with all the other evidence before him, as
reflected in his lengthy and detailed opinion. Specifically, the chancellor observed that “[t]he
extent of development in the proposed areas encompassing Tracts [2 and 3] are speculative
at best and there appears no rush to provide any services from the City except the stretching
of the municipal police department in addition to what the City has already undertaken.”
¶60. We find that the chancellor acted within his discretion in weighing the timing of the
annexation, particularly in light of the fact that the City had recently annexed nearly twenty
23 miles of land, much of which remains vacant, and now seeks to annex additional
undeveloped land just nineteen months later. Moreover, even if an error occurred, it would
be harmless in light of the substantial evidence supporting the chancellor’s conclusion that
annexation was unreasonable.
CONCLUSION
¶61. Given the significant deference afforded to the chancery court in annexation matters,
we cannot say the chancery court committed manifest error by finding this annexation
unreasonable. Substantial credible evidence in the record supported the court’s findings.
When such evidence exists, this Court “must resist the temptation to substitute [its] judgment
for that of a Chancellor, even though [it] may have found otherwise, had any one of us been
the trial judge.” In re City of Laurel, 922 So. 2d at 796. Accordingly, this Court affirms the
chancery court’s judgment.
¶62. AFFIRMED.
RANDOLPH, C.J., KING, P.J., AND SULLIVAN, J., CONCUR. GRIFFIS, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY BRANNING, J. COLEMAN, P.J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
GRIFFIS, JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
2. Whether the chancery court committed reversible error by encroaching on the authority of the City’s board of aldermen to decide when to seek annexation.
¶63. Under Mississippi law, the legislative branch of government has the exclusive
authority to set annexation procedures and to determine when to exercise its sole authority
to adopt an annexation ordinance. “[A]nnexation is a power belonging solely to the
24 Legislature.” In re City of Sardis, 954 So. 2d 434, 437 (Miss. 2007) (citing Poole v. City of
Pearl (In re City of Pearl), 908 So. 2d 728, 730 (Miss. 2005)). “The adoption of an
ordinance by a municipality expressing its intent to expand its boundaries is purely a
legislative matter . . . .” City of Jackson v. Town of Flowood, 331 So. 2d 909, 911 (Miss.
1976). Also, this Court has held that a chancellor applies an incorrect legal standard
constituting reversible error by “usurp[ing] the exclusively legislative function of
determining whether to pursue annexation[.]” In re City of Sardis, 954 So. 2d at 438.
¶64. Here, the chancellor considered the twelve indicia of reasonableness established by
this Court and considered the “totality of the circumstances.” City of Jackson v. City of
Madison (In re City of Madison), 650 So. 2d 490, 494 (Miss. 1995) (internal quotation mark
omitted) (quoting Robinson v. City of Columbus (In re City of Columbus), 644 So. 2d 1168,
1172 (Miss. 1994)); Lamar Cnty. v. City of Hattiesburg (In re City of Hattiesburg), 840 So.
2d 69, 81-82 (Miss. 2003). The chancellor clarified, however, that he also gave significant
consideration to Olive Branch’s prior unsuccessful annexation attempt in 2021. Several times
in the opinion, the chancellor mentioned that the subject parcels were included within the
portion of an annexation the court had declined to award in 2021. The chancellor also made
the statement that “[i]n the American South, and particularly in Mississippi, it is considered
improper etiquette to ask for seconds during a meal without consuming the first serving.
Perhaps this should be considered to some extent in municipal annexations as here.” After
this statement, the chancellor continued to list “the fact that the City requested these parcels
in its immediate past annexation of 2021 and was denied” as one of the reasons why it found
25 annexation of the areas in question unreasonable.
¶65. A city’s legislative governing body has the exclusive authority to determine when
annexation is required by the public convenience and necessity. See Miss. Code Ann. §
21-1-33 (Supp. 2025); Bassett v. Town of Taylorsville, 542 So. 2d 918, 920 (Miss. 1989).
A finding by a city’s legislative governing authority that annexation is required by the public
convenience and necessity is beyond judicial review. Ritchie v. City of Brookhaven (In re
City of Brookhaven), 217 Miss. 860, 65 So. 2d 832, 833 (Miss. 1953). There is no required
waiting period. A city may pursue annexation when and as often as it deems enlargement
is required by the public convenience and necessity. See In re City of Indianola, 226 Miss.
760, 85 So. 2d 212, 214 (1956). Thus, no basis in law existed for the chancellor to consider
“the fact that the City requested [Tracts 2 and 3] in its immediate past annexation of 2021 and
was denied” as a specific reason it found the annexation of these parcels unreasonable here.
This is an encroachment and a violation of separation of powers that should result in reversal.
¶66. The Olive Branch Board of Aldermen adopted an annexation ordinance when it found
expansion to be required by the public convenience and necessity. Thus, the chancellor
applied an erroneous legal standard by “usurp[ing] the exclusively legislative function of
determining whether to pursue annexation . . . [,]” In re City of Sardis, 954 So. 2d at 438,
and basing its denial on the timing of Olive Branch’s decision to pursue annexation following
the City’s prior annexation. Only the Olive Branch Board of Aldermen has the authority to
decide when it is convenient and necessary for the City to pursue annexation. That decision
is beyond judicial review.
26 ¶67. As a result, I find that the chancellor’s decision—that annexation was impermissible
because it amounted to poor manners or was sought too soon after the City’s prior
annexation—constitutes reversible error.
BRANNING, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.