I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 2 - CA- 0 1 6 9 5 - S CT RAL PH H. McBROOM AND GERALDI

NE E. McBR OOM
v. J ACK SON CO UN TY, M

I SS I SS I PPI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 18/ 2012 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J AY E A. BRA DLEY TRI AL C OU RT A TTOR NEY S: RO BERT E. O’ DELL G A RY S. EV A N S AN GELA BRO UN BLA CK W ELL COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ACKSON COUNTY CHAN CER Y COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: RO BERT E. O’ DELL A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL EE: G A RY S. EV A N S AN GELA BRO UN BLA CK W ELL NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 10/ 02/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , K I T C H E N S A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. I n 1972, t he B oar d of Supervi s or s of J acks on C ounty, M i s s i s s i ppi , appr oved the f i nal pl atf orSpr i ng Lake Subdi vi s i on. A tthatt i m e, the s ol e m eans of ve hi cul ara cce s s t o the subd i vis i on w as Spri ng L ake D ri ve E ast , w hich cr ossed S pri ng L ake D am . T he M cB room s,
w ho ow n Spr i ng L ake, thr ee s ubdi vi s i on l ot s on Spr i ng L ake, and t he dam f or m i ng the l ake
a n d p ro v id in g a c c e ss to th e su b d iv isio n , co n ten d th a t Ja c k so n C o u n ty is o b lig a ted to m a in tain the d i l apidat i ng roadw ay b y virtue of t he M cB room s’ d edicat i on o f the roadw ay to pub l i c use
a n d Ja c k so n C o u n ty’s a c c e p tan c e o f th e ir d e d ica tio n . T h e C h a n c e ry C o u rt o f Ja c k so n C o u n ty

### 2

hel d thatthe M cB r oom s w er e ent i t l ed t o no r el i ef
. F i ndi ng t hatthe Spr i ng L ake D am and t he
r oadw ay overi tw er e dedi cat ed t o publ i c us e and acce pt ed by J acks on C ounty undert he
comm on l aw of

t hi s S t at e, as evi dence d by m or e than thi r ty year s of cont i nuous us e by the p u b lic , w e re v e rs e a n d re n d e r j u d g m e n t f o r t h e M c B ro o m s . F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S B E L OW ¶2. R al ph M cB r oom pur chas ed tw o l ot s on the ea s ts i de of Sp ri ng L ake i n the Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on i n 1 97 2 and a t hi r d l oti n 1989. H e bui l ta home on t he l ot s i n 1986 and
m oved i n w i th hi s w i f e G er al di ne i n 1987. T he r es i dence i s s i tuat ed on the l ake t o t he im m e d iate le ft o f S p rin g L a k e D riv e E a st, a p a v e d ro a d w a y w h ich c ro ss e s th e e n tire le n g th of the S pri ng L ake D am travel i ng east . Itw as un dis pu t ed at tri al that, forthirty-f ou r year s, f r om 1972 unt i l an al t ernat e means of acc es s t o the Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on w as cons truct ed by J acks on C ounty i n 2006, the r oadw ay overSpr i ng L ake D am provi ded the onl y m eans of i ngr es s and egr ess t o and f r om t he s ubdi vi s i on: “the garbage man, the mai l m an, everyone, U PS m an. T hey al l –w el l , m att erof f act , he s t i l l c om es ove rthatthi ng. B utno one had a ny p ro b le m s w ith th e ro a d ,” a s R a lp h M c B ro o m te s tif ie d
. ¶3. N e v e rth e les s, a t th e tim e th e su b d iv isio n w a s d e v e lo p e d in 1 9 7 2 , th e Ja c k so n C o u n ty B oar d of Super vi s or s appr oved the f i nal s ubdi vi s i on pl atf

orthe Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on but added t o i tthe f

ol l ow i ng uni l at er al s t at ement : “s ubj ectt o the condi t i on thatthe deve l oper p e rp e tu a lly m a in tain th e e n tra n c e ro u te in to sa id s u b d iv isio n a lo n g th e d a m a n d su b jec t to the expr es s condi t i on thatJ acks on C ounty does notacce pts ai d entr ance r out e overthe dam fo r m a in ten a n c e .” In 1 9 8 0 , L a k e -O -P in e s, In c ., c o n v e y e d , b y w a rra n ty d e e d , p ro p e rty

### 3

i ncl udi ng Spr i ng L ake a nd Spr i ng L ake D am t o Sm i th H om es , I nc. T he w arr anty deed
c o n tain e d th e fo llo w in g stip u latio n : I ti s expr es s l y underst oo d and agr eed thatthe G r ant orher ei n has the re sp o n sib ili ty o f re p a irin g th e d a m fo r S p rin g L a k e a n d to h a v e su c h re p a ir compl et ed by A ugus t1, 1 980. U pon acc ept ance of s uch r epai rw or k by the B o a rd o f W a te r C o m m iss io n e rs o f th e S tate o f M iss iss ip p i, th e g ra n tee sh a ll as s um e the r es pons i bi l i ty of m ai nt enanc e of

s ai d dam atSpr i ng L ake. N ot abl y, this ins trum enti s s i l entw i th r es pectt o the pave d r oadw ay at op the dam. A f t er
m ul t i pl e co nveyanc es of the pr operty s i nce 1980, M ert on L ar s on pur chas ed Spr i ng L ake, i ncl udi ng Spr i ng L ake D am, i n 2003 by qui t cl ai m deed. I n 2005, L ar s on conveye d the l ake
a n d d a m to h is c o m p a n y , P roje c t S y s te m s In v e s tm e n t C o rp o ra tio n . ¶4. I n 2006, the Spr i ng Lake D am and r oadw ay had det er i or at ed t o s uch a de gr ee that the l ocal s chool bus es , w hi ch hi s t or i cal l y had ut i l i zed the dam f ori ngr es s and egr es s t o and f r om the Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on, w er e pr ohi bi t ed by t he C ounty S chool B oar d f r om cr os s i ng t he dam. T hatyear , the county opened a n alt ernat e ac ces s i nt o the s ubdi vi s i on, namel y L ee T ay lor R o ad
. O n M arc h 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , the M cB roo m s fi led a co m p lai n t i n th e C h an ce ry C o u rt of J acks on C ount y agai ns tJ acks on C ounty, J acks on C ounty Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on, M i s s i s s i p p i De p a r t me n to f En v i r o n me n t a l Qu a l i ty , M e r t o n La r s o n , a n d P r o j e c tS y s t e ms In v e s tm e n t C o rp o ra tio n . ¶ 5 . A ccor di ng t o t he M cB r ooms’ compl ai nt , t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epar t m ent of E nvi r onm ent al Q ual i ty ( M D E Q ) h ad pl ace d “Lar s on on not i ce thatthe dam i s [ a] ‘ hi gh haza r d dam’ pur s uantt o t he l aw s of the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi and thatthe s ame m us tbe ei ther
r epai r ed, or breeched [ s i c] , and the l ake dr ai ned. ” The M cB r oom s al l eged that“J acks on C ounty, act i ng t hr ough i t s B oar d of Super vi s or s , now r ef

us es t o cont i nue i t s tr adi t i onal

### 4

m ai nt enanc e of

the r oad acr os s the dam bas ed upon the bel i ef thatthe r oad ac r os s the dam is a p ri v ate ro ad
. ” T h e M cB roo m s so u g h t an in jun cti o n ag ains t Ja c k so n C o u n ty to req u ir e th e Ja c k so n C o u n ty B o a rd o f S u p e rv iso rs “ to tak e im m e d iate ste p s to res to re the d a m a n d to
r es t or e the r oad t hattr aver s es the t op of the dam t o a s af

e and r eas onabl e condi t i on f or i ngr es s and egr es s of

t he Pl ai nt i f

f s and prope r ty ow ner s i n Spr i ng L ake V i l l age [ Subdi vi s i on]

. . . ” ort o r equi r e thatL ar s on ef f ectt hos e r epai r s . T he compl ai ntf ur thers oughtan i nj unct i on to p re v e n t M D E Q a n d L a rs o n fr o m b re a c h in g th e d a m . ¶6. M D E Q fi l ed a M oti on t o D i sm i ss, argui ng that the M cB room s had fai l ed t o ex hau st admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T he J acks on C ounty P l anni ng C om m i s s i on l i kew i s e f i l ed a M ot i on to D is m is s , a s s e rt in g th a t, h a v in g “ n o se p a ra te le g a l e x is te n c e a p a rt fr o m J a c k s o n C o u n ty ,” i tw as “nota l egal ent i ty capa bl e of s ui ng a nd be i ng s ued” a nd ther ef or e nota pr operpar ty. I n an or derdat ed M ay 15, 2006, the cha ncel l orgr ant ed the J acks on C ounty Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on’ s M oti on t o D i s m i s s and, beca us e the M cB r oom s agr eed t o pur s ue admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , cont i nued M D E Q ’ s M ot i on t o D i s m i s s . T hos e admi ni s tr at i ve
re m e d ies in v o lv e d th e M c B ro o m s’ o b tain in g a d a m -b re a c h a n a ly sis a n d a su rv e y a n d fie ld
ver i f i cat i on re por t . T he r es ul t s of thos e r eport s l ed t o a re cl as s i f i cat i on by M D E Q of

Spr i ng L ake D am “as a l ow - haza r d dam. ” A ccor di ng t o the l ett ert he M cB r oom s r ece i ved f r om M D E Q , “[ o] w ner s of

l ow - haza r d dams ar e notr equi r ed t o devel op and m ai nt ai n an E m er gency A ct i on Pl an (EA P ) norar e they r equi r ed t o have thei rdam i ns pect ed by an
e n g in e e r.” ¶7 . T he chanc el l ort hen di s m i s s ed M er t on L ar s on a nd Pr oj e c tSys t e ms I nves t m ent C orpor at i on w i th pr ej udi ce be caus e a s ett l ementha d be en achi eved. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat

### 5

on M ay 11, 2006, the M cB r oom s had pur chas ed by qui t cl ai m deed S pri ng L ake ( and the
acc om panyi ng dam and r oadw ay) f r om Pr oj ectSyst ems I nves t m entC orpor at i on. ¶8. Fol l ow i ng further i nv est i gat i ons and the f i l i ng of tw o amended compl ai nt s by the M c B ro o m s, a trial w a s h e ld in A u g u st 2 0 1 2 . T h e M c B ro o m s’ S e c o n d A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, agai ns tJ acks on C ount y onl y, s oughta dec l ar at ory j udgm entthatthe Spr i ng Lake D am and the r oadw ay overi thad bee n dedi cat ed t o publ i c us e and a cce pt ed by J acks on C ounty and thatthe J acks on Count y Boar d of Supervi s or s ’ 1972 s t at ement , i n the f i nal pl atappr oval , t hat th e d e v e lo p e r m a in tain th e d a m , w a s a n a c t ul tr a vi r es , w hi ch i s to say, b eyond i t s l egal author i ty. T he M cB r oom s sought , i n t he al t ernat i ve, re cogni t i on thatJ acks on C ounty ei ther
w as r es pons i bl e f

orm ai nt ai ni ng t he dam and roa dw ay by vi r tue of a publ i c ea s ementorby
a d v e rse p o ss e ss io n . A d d iti o n a lly , the y s o u g h t c o m p e n s a to ry d a m a g e s a n d a tto rn e y fe e s. B o th part i es s ubm i t t ed Pr opos ed Fi ndi ngs of Factand C oncl us i ons of L aw . O n Sept ember18, 2012, the cha ncel l ori s s ued her“Fi ndi ngs of Fact , Concl us i ons of

Law , R ul i ng and J udgm ent
o f t h e C o u rt ” h o ld in g th a t th e M c B ro o m s w e re n o t e n title d to a n y o f t h e re lie f s o u g h t. ¶9. A g gri eved , the M cB room s ti m el y app eal ed the chan cel l or’ s judgm ent t o this C o u rt
on O ct ob er 4, 20 12
. T hey rai sed t he fol l ow i ng i ssues: 1. W hetherthe tr i al c our te rr ed i n notf i ndi ng thatther e w as an ac tual , or “s t atut ory, ” dedi cat i on and ac cept ance by J acks on C oun ty of the roa d w ay o v er S p ri n g L ak e d am , inclu d ing w h ethe r Ja c k so n C o u n ty’s purpor t ed exc l us i on of m ai nt enanc e r es pons i bil i ty f orSpr i ng L ake D riv e E a st o v e r S p rin g L a k e d a m b y re so lu tio n w a s u n law fu l. 2. W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n notf i ndi ng thatther e w as an i m pl i ed, or“comm on l aw , ” dedi cat i on and ac cept ance t o J acks on C ounty of the d is p u te d ro a d w a y , s o a s to c re a te a p u b lic e a s e m e n t.

### 6

3. W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed i n notf i ndi ng the exi s t ence of a n eas ement orr i ght
- of

- w ay by pr es cr i pt i on i n f avorof publ i c ow ner s hi p of

the di s put ed r oadw ay by J acks on C ounty. 4. W hetherthe tr i al cour ter r ed i n notaw ar di ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef or der i ng Ja c k so n C o u n ty to p ro v id e m a in ten a n c e to th e ro a d w a y a n d su b stra te d a m. 5. W hethert he tr i al cour terr ed i n notaw ar di ng the pl ai nt i f f s att orney f

ees a n d c o s ts o f c o u rt . F i n d i n g th e M c Br o o ms ’ o th e rc o n t e n t i o n s t o b e wi th o u tme r i t , we a d d r e s s o n l y th e i rf i r s tt wo
a s s ig n m e n ts o f e rr o r. DI S CU S S I ON W het her t he c hancel l or err oneousl y c oncl uded t hat Jac ks on C ounty was not obl i gat ed t o m ai nt ai n Sp ri ng L ake D ri ve E as t over Spri ng L ake D am b y v ir tu e o f s ta tu to r y a n d c o m m o n la w d e d ic a ti o n a n d a c c e p ta n c e . ¶ 1 0
. T h e M c B ro o m s c laim th a t c o n tin u o u s p u b lic u se o f S p rin g L a k e D riv e E a st, th e so le
mea ns o f

v e hi c ul a ra c c e s s t o the Sp r i ng La ke Su bd i vi s i on f r om 19 72 thr ough 2006,
e v id e n c e s in ten t of

the su b d iv isio n d e v e lo p e r at th e ti m e the p lat w a s a p p ro v e d to d e d ica te the ac ces s roa dw ay t o publ i c use , not w i ths t andi ng Jac ks on C ounty’ s at t empt ed r ef us al i n t he fi n al plat t o ac ce p t th e ro ad w ay . T h e M cB roo m s furthe r ar g u e th at Jac k so n C o u n ty’s
acc ept ance of

the Spr i ng Lake Subdi vi s i on f i nal pl atw i th the di r ect i ve thatthe “de vel oper perpetual l y m ai nt ai n the entr ance r out e i nt o s ai d s ubdi vi s i on a l ong the dam” cons t i tut ed an ultra vi res act i on. J acks on Count y c ount er s thatthe r oadw ay overSpr i ng Lake D am w as not i ncl uded i n the l egal des cr i pt i on of the pl atand that , w hi l e the county s peci f i cal l y di d acc ept the r oads i ncl uded w i thi n the plat ’s l egal des cr i pt i on of the s ubdi vi s i on, the r oadw ay over S p rin g L a k e D a m w a s n o t in c lu d e d a m o n g th o se ro a d s a c c e p ted . T h e c h a n c e llo r fo u n d th a t,

### 7

atthe t i m e of

tr i al i n 2012, the M cB r oom s w er e the fee si m ple ow ner s of the Spr i ng L ake D a m and r oa dway a nd tha t , i n 1 97 2, J a c ks on County h a d n ota c t e d u ltra vi res by condi t i oni ng acc ept ance of the f i nal pl ato n t he devel oper ’ s m ai nt enanc e of the dam and
ro a d w a y . ¶11. T he f

i ndi ngs of f

actof a chanc el l or“w i l l notbe di s turbed unl es s m ani f es t l y w r ong or cl ear l y err oneous . ” L ow r ey v. L ow r ey , 25 So. 3d 274, 285 ( M i s s . 2009) ( quot i ng Sanders on
v. S an ders on , 824 So. 2d 623, 625 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng Cons ol . Pi pe & Sup

pl y Co. v. Colter , 73 5 S o. 2d 95 8, 96 1 (M i ss. 19 99 )) ). H ow ever, “t he C ou rtw i l l no thesi t at e t o reverse i f i tf i nds the chanc el l or ’ s de ci s i on i s mani f es t l y w r ong, orthatthe courta ppl i ed an e rr oneous l egal s t andar d. ” L ow r ey , 25 So. 3d at625 ( quot i ng O w en v. O w en , 9 28 So
. 2 d 15 6, 160 ( M i s s . 20 06 ) )
. “ A c ha nc e l l or ’ s c on c l us i on s of l a w a r e r e vi e w e d d e no vo . ” L ow r ey , 25 So. 3d at625 ( ci t i ng Ches ney v. Ches ney , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ))
. ¶ 1 2
. T h is C o u rt h a s d e fi n e d “ d e d ic a tio n ” a s “ th e s e tt in g a s id e o f l a n d fo r p u b lic u s e .” N e ttle to n Ch u rc h o

f Ch ris t v. Co n w ill , 707 So. 2d 1075, 1076 ( M i s s . 1997)
. Pr i vat e l and
ma y b e d e d i c a t e d t o p u b l i c u s e i n two wa y s , p u r s u a n tt o s t a tu t e a n d u n d e rth e c o mm o n l a w. Co n w ill , 707 So. 2d at1076 ( ci t i ng D edi cat i on 2 3 A m . Ju r. 2 d § 3 ). A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt, “[ t ] w o di s t i nct i ons s epar at e the di f f er enttypes of

dedi cat i on. ” I

d . “ Fi r s t , the c omm on l aw dedi cat i on ope r at es by w ay of a n e qui t abl e es t oppel , w her eas a s t atut ory dedi cat i on oper at es by w ay of

gr ant . Second, a comm on l aw dedi cat i on usual l y cr eat es a m er e ea s ement , w her eas i n a s t atut ory dedi cat i on the f ee of the pr operty i s i n the publ i c. ” I d. A. Stat ut or

y D edi cat i on

### 8

¶13. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 21-19- 63 (Rev. 2007) s et s forth a m echa ni s m by w hi ch l and
m a y b e d e d ica ted to p u b lic u se b y p lat: I n a l l c as es w her e a m ap orpl atof the s ubdi vi s i on i s s ub m i t t ed to the governi ng aut ho r i t i es of a m u n icip a lit

y , and i s by them app roved, al l street s, r oads , al l eys and otherpubl i c w ays s etf or th and s how n on sai d m ap orpl at s hal l be ther eby dedi cat ed t o the publ i c use , and shal l notbe used otherw i s e.

. . . ” ( E m phas i s added. ) W e agr ee w i th the M cB r oom s thatthe dam appear s on the f i nal pl atm ap
o f th e S p rin g L a k e S u b d iv isio n a c c e p ted b y th e Ja c k so n C o u n ty B o a rd o f S u p e rv iso rs in 1972. B utw e f

i nd thatSect i on 21- 19- 63 appl i es by i t s pl ai n l anguage t o m uni ci pal i t i es , not t o count i es . A s w e pr evi ous l y have hel d, “[ t ] he court s have no r i ghtt o add anythi ng t o ort ake anythi ng f

r om a s t atut e, w her e the l anguage i s pl ai n and unambi guous . T o do so w oul d be i ntr enchi ng upon the pow erof the Legi s l atur e. ” W

al lace v. Tow n of

R alei gh , 815 So. 2d 1203, 1208 ( M i s s . 2002) ( quot i ng H am nerv. Y

az oo D el ta L um berCo. , 100 M i s s . 349, 56 S o . 4 6 6 , 4 9 0 (1 9 1 1 ))
. ¶14
. N everthel es s , the M cB r oom s m ai ntai n thatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 17- 1- 23( 3) ( R ev. 2012) pr ovi des a count erpartt o Sect i on 23- 19- 62 a ppl i cabl e t o c ount i es . W hi l e w e agr ee that the pl ai n l anguage of others ubs ect i ons of Sect i on 17- 1- 23 appl i es t o count i es , t he M cB r oom s ’ i nt erpr et at i on of S ect i on 17- 1- 23( 3) agai n i gnor es the pl ai n l anguage of t he
s t atut e. I n pert i nentpart , Sect i on 17- 1- 23( 3), w hi ch i s vi r tual l y i dent i cal t o Sect i on 21- 19- 63, provides: I n al l cases w here a m ap orpl atof the s ubdi vi s i on i s s ubm i t t ed t o the governi ng author i t i es of a m u n icip a lit

y , and i s by the m app roved, al l street s, r oads , al l eys and otherpubl i c w ays s etf or th and show n on s ai d m ap orpl at s hal l be ther eby dedi cat ed t o the publ i c us e, a nd s hal l notbe us ed otherw i s e .

. . .

### 9

( E m phas i s added. ) Subse ct i ons 1, 2, and 4 of Sect i on 1 7-1-23 r ef

er ence the “gove r ni ng author i ty of

eac h m uni ci pal i ty o r c o u n ty . ” ( E m ph as i s added. ) W e ca nnotagr ee w i t h t he M cB r oom s thatSect i on 17 -1- 23 (3) app l i es t o co un t i es, no tw i ths t andi ng the l anguage of other
s u b s e c tio n s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 17- 1- 1( a) ( R ev. 2012) ( “‘ M uni ci pal i ty’ m eans any in c o rp o ra ted c ity , tow n o r v ill a g e w ith in th e sta te.” ); C O R D eve lopm ent s, L L C v. Col lege H il l He i g ht s Ho m e o wne rs, LLC , 973 So. 2d 273, 287 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2008) ( hol di ng t hat S e c tio n 1 7 -1 -2 3 (3 ) “ d o e s n o t g o v e rn in th e p re s e n t c a s e b e c a u se it ap p lies o n ly to
m uni ci pal i t i es , notcount i es . ”) ¶15
. S ect i on 17 -1- 23 (2) by i t s pl ai n langua ge ap pli es t o co un t i es. Itprovides: T he boar d of

s upervi s or s of

a ny c ounty may or derthatno pl atof a s ubdi vi s i on s hal l be r ecor ded unt i l i thas been appr oved by the boar d of s upervi s or s , and the boar d of

s upervi s or s s hal l have pow ert o r equi r e the i ns t al l at i on of ut i l i t i es and l ayi ng outof

s tr eet s i n s ubdi vi s i ons ort o acc eptper f or m ance bonds i n l i eu th e re o f . . . . T he M cB r oom s ar gue thatSect i on 17- 1- 23( 2) i s a n e nabl i ng s t atut e, pr ovi di ng a “l egi s l at i ve gr antof author i ty t o t he boar d of s up ervi sors ” ei thert o “( 1) ‘ r equi r e the i ns t al l at i on of ut i l i t i es and l ayi ng outof s tr eet s i n s ubdi vi s i ons ’ or , ( 2) ‘ t o a cce ptpe r f or m ance bonds i n l i eu thereof. ’” W e fi nd th e M cB roo m s’ con t enti on s t o b e w i tho ut m eri t . S ect i on 17 -1- 23 (2) i s, by it s pla i n l anguage , di s cr et i onary. Fi r s t , “[ a] bas i c t enetof s t atut ory cons truct i on i s t hat

‘ s hal l ’ i s m andat ory and ‘ m ay’ i s di s cr et i onary. ” Khura na v. Mis s . D e p’t of Rev e nue , 85 So. 3d 851, 854 ( M i s s . 2012) ( quot i ng Fr anklin v. Fr anklin ex r el . P hil li ps , 858 So. 2d 110, 115 ( M i s s . 20 03 ))
. T he st atute gi ves dis cret i on t o the boa rd of s up ervi sors t o w i thh old r ecordat i on of a pl atof a s ubdi vi s i on unt i l s uch t i m e as the boar d appr oves i t . Second, the s t atut e s t at es thatthe boar d “ sh a ll h a v e p o w e r to re q u ire th e in sta llatio n o f u til iti e s a n d lay in g o u t o f stre e ts

### 10

i n s ubdi vi s i ons ort o acc eptper f or m ance bonds i n l i eu ther eof
. . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 17- 1- 23( 2) (e m phas i s added)
. W e f i nd t hatt he l anguage “sha l l have pow ert o” does notm a n da te
a c tio n b y th e c o u n ty b o a rd o f su p e rv iso rs, b u t m e re ly v e sts th e b o a rd w ith th e a u th o rity to
a c t. ¶16. Sect i on 900. 1 of the J acks on C ou nty S ub divi si on R egul at i ons f r om 1968, ent i t l ed “Per f or m ance B ond, ” pr ovi des the f ol l ow i ng: I n tho s e i ns t a nc e s wher e the Pl a nn i ng Comm i s s i on d e t e rmi ne s tha ti ti s not nece s s ary ordes i r abl e thatall requi r ed s tr eet s and otheri m pr ovement s be com plet ed pr i ort o appr oval of the Fi nal Pl at , a per f

or m ance bond w i l l be acc ept ed i n l i eu of

compl et i on of

the cons truct i on as se tf or th i n A r t i cl e V (R e q u ir e d Im p ro v e m e n ts ) . . . . E quat i ng “compl et i on” w i th “ac cept ance , ” the M cB r oom s a r gue i n thei rr epl y br i ef , w i thout ci t i ng any author i ty, that“[ w ] her e ther e i s , put at i vel y, no acc ept ance of a s tr eetf

or
m a in ten a n c e b y th e C o u n ty , a p e rfo rm a n c e b o n d is re q u ire d b y th e o rd in a n c e (a s in
acc or dance w i th t he enabl i ng s t atut e) i n or dert o s ecur e f utur e per f

or m ance by t he devel oper . ” Thus, acc or di ng t o the M cB r oo ms, J a c ks on County’ s de l e ga t i on of the ob l i ga t i on t o m ai nt a i n the Spr i ng Lak e D a m t o the de ve l op e r , i n the a bs e nc e of a pe r f ormanc e bo nd
s ecur i ng f

utur e mai nt enanc e, cons t i tut ed an ultra vi res actby the count y. W e fi nd t he M c B ro o m s ’ a rg u m e n t to b e u n s u p p o rt e d
. ¶17. T he o rdi nan ce requir es a per f or m ance bond i n l i eu of con struct i on “[ i ] n t ho se i ns t ance s w her e the Pl anni ng Com m i s s i on de t erm i nes thati ti s notnece s s ary ordes i r abl e that
a ll r e q u ir e d s tr e e ts a n d o th e r i m p ro v e m e n ts b e c o m p le te d p ri o r t o a p p ro v a l o f t h e F in a l P la t.” Ja c k so n C o u n ty , M iss ., S u b d iv isio n R e g u latio n 9 0 0 .1 (1 9 6 8 ). T h e sc e n a rio c o n tem p late d in S u b d ivisi o n R eg u lat ion 9 0 0
. 1 rem ains w h o l l y d i st ing u isha b le from the fa cts b efo re the C o u rt

### 11

i n the i ns t antcas e. H ere, the M cB r oom s pr es ent ed no evi dence thata det erm i nat i on w as
m ade by the Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on thata per f or m ance bond w as r equi r ed i n l i eu of compl et i on of

the r oadw ay overthe Spr i ng Lake D am pri ort o appr oval of the f i nal pl at . T he J acks on C ount y B oar d of Supervi s or s condi t i oned the appr oval of the f i nal pl aton t he cont i nued mai nt enanc e of the dam and r oadw ay by the d eveloperof the Spr i ng L ake
s ubdi vi s i on. T hus , on the bas i s of dedi cat i on and ac cept ance underours t atut es , w e ca nnot
s ay the cha ncel l orerr ed i n hol di ng thatthe M cB room s w ere the f ee s i m pl e ow ner s of

t he S p ri n g L a k e D a m a n d th e ro a d w a y o v e r i t. See Co n w ill , 7 0 7 S o . 2 d a t 10 7 6 (“[I] n a statuto ry dedi cat i on the f

ee of the pr operty i s i n the publ i c. ”) ¶ 1 8
. F o r th e se re a so n s, th e M iss iss ip p i sta tu tes p e rta in in g to d e d ica tio n o f p riv a te lan d to p u b lic u se d o n o t su p p o rt th e M c B ro o m s’ p o sitio n th a t Ja c k so n C o u n ty w a s o b lig a ted to
m a in tain S p rin g L a k e D a m a n d th e ro a d w a y o v e r it. B . C om m on Law D edi cat i on and A cce ptance ¶19. T he s t atut ory a nal ys i s i s notdi s pos i t i ve, how ever . The c om m on l aw of dedi cat i on and accept ance, w hi ch “ope r at es by w ay of an equi t abl e es t oppel , ” al s o m us tbe cons i der ed. Co n w ill , 707 So. 2d at1076. I ns t ead of a c r eat i ng a f

ee i nt er es ti n the publ i c, “a c om m on l aw dedi cat i on us ual l y cr eat es a mer e ea s ement . ” I d. W e f i nd t hat , w hi l e s t atut ory dedi cat i on and
acc ept ance ar e l i m i t ed by pl ai n s t atut ory l anguage t o m uni ci pal i t i es , the comm on l aw of d e d ic a tio n a n d a c c e p ta n c e c a n b e a p p lie d m o re b ro a d ly to a c tio n s b y c o u n tie s . See Hearn
v. Mor r ow , 2 7 2 S o . 2 d 6 4 5 (M iss . 1 9 7 3 ); A rm str o n gv. Ita w a m b a Co u n ty , 195 M i s s . 802, 1 6 S o . 2 d 7 5 2 (1 9 4 4 ); K in n are v. G regory , 55 M i s s . 612, 1878 W L 4511 ( 1878)
. A ccor di ng to th is C o u rt:

### 12

I ti s wel l
- s e t t l e d l a w i n M i s s i s s i pp i tha tl a nd s ol d a c c or di ng t o a p l a to rm ap w i l l dedi cat e t he str eet s , al l eys , squar es , and ot herpubl i c w ays m arked on the m a p o r p la t to th e p u b lic fo r p u b lic u s e . S e e , e .g ., L u ter v. Craw ford , 23 0 M i ss. 8 1 , 9 2 S o . 2 d 3 4 8 (1 9 5 7 ); Skrm etta v. Moo re , 227 M i s s . 119, 86 So. 2d 46 (1 9 5 6 ); P anhan dle O il Co. v. T

r i gg , 1 4 8 M iss. 3 0 6 , 1 1 4 S o . 6 2 5 (19 2 7 ); Indian ola L i

gh t , Ice & Coa l

Co. v. Mon t

go m ery , 85 M i s s . 304, 37 So
. 958 (1 9 0 4 ); City o

f V ick sb u rg v. Ma rs h a ll , 5 9 M iss
. 5 6 3 (1 8 8 2 ); B r iel v. N atchez , 4 8 M iss . 4 2 3 (1 8 7 3 ); Vi c k and Rapp le y e v. May ora nd Alde r m en of V i cksbu rg , 1 H o w . 3 7 9 (M iss. 1 8 3 7 ). Co n w ill , 7 0 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 7 6 . T h is ru le h a s ro o ts in th e e a rly ju risp ru d e n c e o f th is s tate : T he rul e has obt ai ned gener al s anct i on, that , i f the ow nerof

urban pr operty has l ai d i toff

int o l ot s i nt er s ect ed by s tr eet s and s el l s the s ame w i th r ef er ence ther et o, orw i th r ef

er ence t o a map orpl atdi vi di ng i ti nt o s quar es , s tr eet s and al l eys , s uch ac t i on w i l l am ou ntt o a dedi cat i on of the s tr eet s and al l eys t o the p u b lic
. Irw in v . L e w is , 9 H o w . (U .S .) 1 0 ; Row an v. Por tland , 8 B
. M onr oe, 2 3 2 ; V i cks v. V i cksbu rg , 1 H ow . 379. B r iel v. Ci t y of N atchez , 48 M i s s . 423, 436, 1873 W L 4128 ( 1873)
. E ven ea r l i erthan the 1873 B r iel c a se , this C o u rt s tate d th a t “ w h e n th e o w n e rs o f u rb a n p ro p e rty h a v e la id it o u t in to lo ts
w ith stre e ts a n d a v e n u e s in ter se c tin g th e sa m e , a n d h a v e so ld lo ts w ith re fe re n c e to su c h p lat, i ti s t oo lat e for them t o r es um e a ge ner al and unl i m i t ed contr ol overthe pr operty, t hus dedi cat ed t o the publ i c. ” V i ck et al . v. T h e Mayo r an d A lderm en of V i cksbu rg , 1 H ow . 379, 2 M is s . 3 7 9 , 4 3 2 (1 8 3 7 ). ¶2 0
. A s to d ed icat i on and acce p tanc e o f ro ad w ay s, this C o u rth as o p ined that the land o w n er:

. . . m ay gr antt o c ert ai n pe r s ons ort o the publ i c the ea s ementof a hi ghw ay over h is la n d ; n o t th a t th e g ra n t is tec h n ica lly b y d e e d , b u t h e m a y d o th o s e a c ts w hi ch unequi vocal l y mani f es ta n i nt ent i on thatthe comm uni ty s hal l have a nd enj oy a hi ghw ay on hi s pr i vat e pr operty. W hen the publ i c acc ept s hi s off er t her e has be e n c on s umm a t e d tha tw hi c h i s of e qu a l i mpor tw i th a c on tr a c tor g ran t, an d th ere ha s be en acc o m p li sh ed w h at i s ex p resse d by th e term “ d e d ic a tio n .” T he ac cept ance m ay be s how n i n tw o w ays : fi rs t , b y t he f or m al actof

the pr operauthor i ty compet entt o s peak and actf orthe publ i c, ori tm ay be i m pl i ed

### The t er m “use r”re fe rs to “ [t ] he a ct ualexe rc is e or

enj oyme nt of

any right , property, 1 

### drugs , f ranchi se , e tc .” Bla ck’s La w D iction ary1383 (5th ed. 1979). 13 fro m c irc u m sta n c e s s u c h a s u se r, e tc . T he P eople v. Jones , 7 M i ch. 176, 1 F u lto n v. Me h ro n

fie ld , 8 O h io S t. 4 4 0 , B r iel v. Cit y of N atchez , 48 M i s s . 436. K in n are , 55 M i s s . at620- 21. ¶21. W e agr ee w i th the M cB r oom s thatthe J acks on Count y B oar d of Super vi s or s appr oved t he f i nal p l a tf

orthe Sp r i ng La ke Su bd i vi s i on i n 19 72 a nd tha tthe f i na l p l a tr e f

e r e nc e d t he dam. T he 1972 pl atm ap appr oved by the B oar d notonl y ref erence s “D A M , ” butal s o, t he dam i t s el f

connec t s w i th Spr i ng L ake D r i ve East . I ti s true thatthe B oar d s oughtt o condi t i on i t s appr oval of

the Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on on the devel oper ’ s perpetual m ai nt enanc e of “the
e n tra n c e ro u te in to sa id su b d iv isio n a lo n g the d a m ” an d ex p re ss ly sta ted th a t “J a c k so n C o u n ty does notacc epts ai d e ntr ance r out e overthe dam f orm ai nt enanc e. ” B utthi s di s cl ai m erdoes notcomportw i th the r equi r ementof Sect i on 404. 4 of

the J acks on C ounty Subd i vi s i on R egul at i ons of

1968 that“the s ubdi vi di ng of the l and s hal l be s uch as t o pr ovi de, by m eans of a publ i c st reet , eac h l otw i th s at i s f act ory acc es s t o an exi s t i ng publ i c s tr eet . ” A nd t he part i es do notdi s put e thatthe roadw ay overthe Spr i ng L ake D am w as the s ol e means of
a c c e s s in to th e s u b d iv is io n fr o m 1 9 7 2 u n til L e e T a y lo r R o a d w a s o p e n e d in 2 0 0 6
. ¶22. B eca us e the dam pr ovi ded the s ol e m eans of i ng res s and eg res s t o an d fr om the
s u b d i v i s i o n a tth e t i me o f i t s a p p r o v a l , we f

i n d th a tth e Bo a r d a c t e d c o n t r a r y t o i t s o wn Subdi vi s i on R egul at i ons i n 1972 by att empt i ng t o di s cl ai m m ai nt enanc e of the r oadw ay: J a c k s o n Co u n ty a p p r o v e d th e p l a twi th p u b l i c s tr e e t s th e r e i n a n d wa s r e q u i r e d b y i t s o wn
r egul at i ons t o pr ovi de a publ i c means of acc es s . T he f

actthatan alt erna t i ve r oadw ay w as

### 14

cons truct ed i n 2006, t hi r ty-f ou ryear s af

t erthe B oar d appr oved the f i nal pl atof

the Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on, i s of no m om entt o t hi s C our t ’ s consi der at i on of the 1972 dedi cat i on t o the p u b l i c o f th e S p r i n g La k e Da m. ¶23. W i t h regar d t o t he S ub divi si on R egu l at i on s, the cha ncel l or , how ever , f ound that “Sect i on 400. 2 does notappea rt o requi re stri ctcompl i ance . ” Sect i on 400. 2 r equi r es t he f ol l ow i ng: T h e a rran g em en t of str ee ts i n a su b d ivisi o n sh all eith er:
a. Pr ovi de f

orthe cont i nuat i on of

exi s t i ng pr i nci pal s tr eet s i n s urr oundi ng ar eas ; or b. conf

or m t o a p l a n f

ora r e a d e ve l op menta pp r ove d oradopt ed by t he Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on t o m eeta part i cul ars i tuat i on w her e t opog r a ph i cal orothercondi t i ons m ake c ont i nuance orconf or m ance t o exi s t i ng p ri n c ip a l s tr e e ts im p ra c tic a b le
. T h e c h a n c e llo r th e n c ited S e c tio n 7 0 0 .1 o f th e S u b d iv isio n R e g u latio n s, g o v e rn in g “ H a rd sh ip
a n d M o d ifica tio n s” : [w ]he re th e P lan n in g C o m m iss io n fin d s th a t ex tra o rd in a ry h a rd sh ip s m a y re su lt fr om stri ctcom pli ance w i th these r egu l at i on s, itm ay vary t he regu l at i on s so thats ubs t ant i al just i ce may be done a nd the publ i c i nt er es ts ecur ed, pr ovi ded that s uch vari ance w i l l no thav e t he eff ectof null i fyi ng the int ent and p urpose o f t h e re g u la tio n s .” T h e c h a n c e llo r c o n c lu d e d th a t “[t]h e C o u n ty w a s c lea rly v e ste d w ith th e p o w e r to v a ry its
a c c e p ta n c e o f s u b d iv is io n d e s ig n re g u la tio n s .” ¶24. W e do notagr ee w i th t he chanc el l or ’ s det erm i nat i on. F i r s t , w hi l e “Sect i on 400. 2 does notappea rt o r equi r e s tr i ctcompl i ance, ” i tr el axes compl i ance t o al l ow conf or m i ty t o an adopt ed p l an on l y “w her e t opogr aphi cal orothercondi t i ons m ake c ont i nuance or conf or m ance t o exi s t i ng pri nci pal str eet s i m pr act i cabl e. ” J acks on C ounty, M i s s . , Subdi vi s i on

### 15

R egul at i on 400. 2( b) ( 1968)
. N o condi t i ons , t opogr aphi cal orotherw i s e, w er e ci t ed by the B oar d t o al l ow i tt o r equi r e the deve l opert o m ai nt ai n the onl y r oadw ay pr ovi di ng a means of in g re s s a n d eg re ss to a n d fro m the S p rin g L a k e S u b d iv isio n . O th e rw ise , S e c tio n 4 0 0 .2
m andat es “cont i nuat i on of exi s t i ng pri nci pal str eet s i n a s urr oundi ng ar ea, ” the r equi r ement
w hi ch the r oadw ay overS pr i ng L ake D am appear s t o s at i s f y as i tpr ovi des a cont i nuat i on of S p ri n g L ak e D ri v e E ast. Jac k so n C o u n ty, M iss. , S u b d ivisi o n R eg u lat ion 4 0 0
. 2 (a) (19 6 8 ). M or eover , w i th r egar d t o S ect i on 7 00
. 1, the B oar d neverm ade a f i ndi ng, atthe t i m e of appr oval of

the f i nal pl at , thats tr i ctcompl i ance w i th Sect i on 404. 4 (r equ i ri ng acc es s t o a publ i c s tr eet ) w oul d cr eat e an “ extr aor di nary har ds hi p” s uch thata var i ance fr om the Subdi vi s i on Regul at i ons w as w arr ant ed. The c hance l l or ’ s hol di ng thatthe 1968 Subdi vi s i on R egu l at i on s perm i t t ed a v ari ance u nd er these ci rcum st ances w as erroneou s. ¶ 2 5 . H a v in g a sc e rta in e d th a t a c o m m o n law d e d ica tio n to p u b lic u se o c c u rre d , w e tur n to
a c o n sid e ra tio n o f w h e th e r th e re w a s a n a c c e p tan c e b y th e c o u n ty . A c c o rd in g to th is C o u rt,

“ a c c e p tan c e m a y b e sh o w n in tw o w a y s: firs t, by th e fo rm a l ac t o f th e p ro p e r a u th o rity compet entt o s peak a nd actf ort he publ i c, or i tm ay be i m pl i ed f r om ci r cumst ance s , s uch as
us er , et c. ” K

in n are , 5 5 M iss. at 62 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted). ¶26. T he M cB r oom s ur ge that H urr i cane Fr eder i c, i n Sept ember 1979, exac t ed s i gni f i cant d a m a g e o n S p rin g L a k e D a m an d the ro a d w a y o v e r it . T h e y c ite a 1 9 7 9 lette r, d isp a tch e d in the af t erm ath of

H urr i cane Fr eder i c, f

r om J on B ennett , J acks on C ounty Pl a nn i ng Com m i s s i on D ire c to r, t o C h a rle s M o o re , th e G o v e rn o r’s au th o riz e d rep re se n tativ e o f th e M iss iss ip p i C iv il D ef ens e C ounci l
. Copi es of the l ett erw er e s entboth t o E . A
. K hayat , pr es i dentof the J acks on

### 16

C ounty B oar d of

Super vi s or s , and M el Schnei derof the Feder al E m ergenc y M anage m ent A gency ( FE M A ) , J acks on C ount y. T he l ett ers ai d: T hi s l et t erhas r ef

er ence t o the s pi l l w ay atSpr i ng L ake V i l l age i n J acks on C o u n ty w h ic h w a s d a m a g e d b y H u rr ic a n e F re d e ri c k [s ic ]. P lea se a c c e p t th is le tter a s a re q u e st fo r a D a m a g e S u rv e y R e p o rt o n th is s p illw a y , s o m e tim e s c a lle d th e L a k e O ’ P in e s d a m [a /k /a S p ri n g L a k e D a m ]. E ven tho ug h this appears t o be pr i vat e pr oper t y, i tis a publ i c w ay f

orus e by the gene r alpubl i c incl ud i ng the r es i dent s and f ut ur e r es i dence s [

s i c] i n a 48 lo t su b d ivis io n , in a dd iti o n to fish e rm e n in th e c o u n ty . Jack s on C ount

y di d nota cce

ptm ai nt enance of

this s pi l lw ay as par tof

the Spr i ng Lake Vi l lage Subdivisi on, butthe f act of the m at t eris thatonce the deve l opers el l

s the l ot s , ther e is notone of

respon s i bi l i t

y to m ai ntai n the sp illw a y . T h e re fo re , Ja c k

so n C o u n ty h a d

n o c h o ice b u t to m a in ta in th is p u b lic w ay and has done s o s i nce i tw as cons tr uct ed i n 1973
. I h o p e y o u w ill b e a b le to a s s is t u s in th is m a tte r. (E m p h asis ad d ed
. ) ¶27. A s the chanc el l ornot ed, M i chel l e C oat s , di rect or of the Jack son C ou nty Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on atthe t i m e of the pr es entpr ocee di ngs i n 2012, t es t i f i ed that“ [ a] D amage Sur vey R ep ortwas whatwas p r e vi ou s l y us e d by FEM A , o rb y the c ou nty, t o r e qu e s tf un di ng f r om FE M A t o m ake r epai r s t o i nf r as tructur e damaged i n a natur al d i sast er or a dec l ar ed natur al di s as t er , ” f

or“r ei m bur s ementf

orr epai r s m ade t o damaged i nf r as tructur e. ” The chanc el l or f ound thatno evi dence w as pr es ent ed by the M cB r oom s t hatJ acks on C ounty r epai r ed the dam i n the af t erm ath of

H urr i cane Fr eder i c orr ece i ved f unds f r om FE M A as r ei m bur s ementf or havi ng done s o. B ut , even w i thoutdoc um ent at i on of the ac tual per f

or m ance of

s uch w or k, t he B ennettl ett er , quot ed above , appea r ed on of f i ci al J acks on C ounty Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on let terhe ad an d w as d rafted a n d sen t in an effort to ob tai n fun d s from F E M A , eith er to res tore

### 17

th e d a m o r to re c e iv e re im b u rse m e n t fo r h a v in g d o n e s o . T h e le tter a c k n o w led g e d th e p u b lic
us e of the r oadw ay, both f

orthe r es i dent s of t he subdi vi s i on and f orl ocal f

i s herm en and,
m or eover , r ecogni zed thatJ acks on C ounty had mai nt ai ned t he r oadw ay si nce i t s cons truct i on. ¶28. R eas onabl e m i nds m ay di f f er on the ques t i on of w hether the B ennett l ett er r i s es t o t he l evel of the expr es s acc ept ance cont empl at ed by K in n are , 5 5 M iss. at 62 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted), “by the f or m al actof

the pr operauthor i ty compet entt o spea k and ac tf orthe publ i c, ” s i nce
a c ou nty pl a nn i ng c omm i s s i on i s b y s t a tut e a n i ns trumen t a l i ty of the c ou nty boar d of
s upervi s or s . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 17-1- 11 ( R ev. 2012)
. N everthel es s , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 17 -1- 11 ( 3) ( R ev. 2012) ves t s the l ocal pl anni ng comm i s s i on w i th the author i ty, “i n t he p e rfo rm a n c e o f its d u ties ,” to “ c o o p e ra te w ith , c o n tra c t w ith , o r a c c e p t fu n d s fr o m fe d e ra l,
s ta te o r l o c a l a g e n c ie s o r p ri v a te in d iv id u a ls o r c o rp o ra tio n s a n d m a y e x p e n d s u c h f u n d s . .

. . ” A n of

f i ci al l ett erf

r om the dir ect orof

the J acks on C ounty Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on t o a
re p re se n tativ e o f th e G o v e rn o r o f M iss iss ip p i, co p ied to th e p re sid e n t o f th e Ja c k so n C o u n ty B o a rd o f S u p e rv iso rs a n d to a F E M A o ffic ial, e v id e n c e s a re p re se n tatio n b y Ja c k so n C o u n ty both t o f eder al and s t at e author i t i es r es pect i ng the county’ s ne ed f orf unds ei thert o r epai rt he damage t o Spr i ng L ake D am or t o r ei m bur s e the county f orhavi ng done s o. T hi s cannotbe
s een a s anythi ng otherthan an ove r tur e by l ocal g ov ernm entt o the f eder al governm entf

or pu bli c m on i es t o b e used for pub l i c pu rposes, no tpri vate purposes. ¶29
. F urther, this C ou rthas held that accept ance c an b e m an if ested b y failure to asses s ta x e s o n a s tr e e t. Cit

y o f Jackso n v. L air d , 99 M i s s . 476, 55 So. 41, 42 ( 1911)
. I n L air d , the C i ty of J acks on a s s es s ed bl ocks a nd l ot s i n the “Spl i ta ddi t i on” ar ea f ort axat i on, buti tdi d not
a s s e s s th e s tr e e ts a n d a v e n u e s . I d . O ne part i cul ars tr eet , “C onvent[ A ] venue . . . has notbeen

### 18

gr aded norw or ked by the ci ty, buthas been us ed t o a l i m i t ed ext entby the publ i c, ” though others tr eet s and ave nues i n the “Spl i taddi t i on” ar ea ha d been “ w or ked and ke pti n r epai rby the m uni ci pal a uthor i t i es a nd us ed by the publ i c. ” I d. A c c o rd in g to th e C o u rt, “[t] h e se fa c ts
cons t i tut e an ac cept ance by the ci ty of the dedi cat i on t o publ i c us e of the s tr eet s and ave nues of ‘ Spl i taddi t i on, ’ i ncl udi ng t hos e s tr eet s and ave nues w hi ch have notbeen gr aded a nd kept i n r epai r . ” I

d . ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. H er e, M ary A nn Font enot , f r om the M appi ng D epart m ent of the J acks on C ount y T ax A s s es s or ’ s O f f i ce, t es t i f i ed attr i al thatthe r oadw ay overSpr i ng L ake D am w as “[ n] otbei ng t axed” and thati thad notbeen t axed s i nce s he bega n w or ki ng
w i th the M appi ng D epart m enti n 1993. Font enotf ur thert es t i f

i ed that , al though s he w as not empl oyed w i th J acks on C ount y i n 1972, the maps s he w as exami ni ng dat ed back t o 1972. T h u s, u n d er L air d , the pr otr act ed f ai l ur e of Jac ks on C ounty t o ass es s re al est at e t axes t o t he S p rin g L a k e D a m d e m o n stra tes im p lied a c c e p tan c e b y th e c o u n ty o f its d e d ica tio n to p u b lic
u s e . ¶30. J acks on C ounty emphasi zed M i s s i s s i ppi Code Sect i on 65- 7- 4( 1) ( R ev. 2012) , w hi ch
re q u ire s c o u n ties to “ p re p a re a n d a d o p t an o ffic ial m a p d e sig n a tin g a n d d e lin e a tin g a ll p u b lic
ro a d s o n th e c o u n ty ro a d sy ste m .” S u b se c tio n 5 o f S e c tio n 6 5 -7 -4 p ro v id e s th a t “[t]h e c o u n ty
r oad s ys t em re gi s t ers hal l have pr i or i ty i n cas e of conf l i ctbetw een the r egi s t erand the of f i ci al
m a p .” C iti n g a n o p in io n o f th e M iss iss ip p i A tto rn e y G e n e ra l, Ja c k so n C o u n ty a rg u e d th a t th is pr ovi s i on cl ar i f

i ed w hi ch r oads w er e county r oads a nd w hi ch r oads w er e notcounty r oad f or the purpos e of

m ai nt enanc e. T he cha ncel l oragr eed, fi ndi ng t hat , “[ a] l though the C our tf i nds th e a b s e n c e o f t a x e s a n d in c lu s io n o f t h e ro a d w a y o n th e c o u n ty ro a d m a p in d e x re le v a n t,” the st atut e “c l ear l y gr ant s the county r oad r egi s t erpr i or i ty. ” B utthe i s s ue i s nota “c onf l i ct

### Further , Se ction 65- 7-4, whic h went int o ef fe ct on July 1, 1998, require d adoption 2 

### of an off ic ia l m ap “ [o] n or be for e July 1, 2000. ” Thest at utewould have no r el evanceto an ana lys is of common law de dic ation and ac ceptanceof a purporte d county roa d cons tr uct ed in 1 97 2. 19 be tw e e n the r e gi s t e ra nd the o f f i c i a l map , ” t o w hi c h Se c t i on 6 5- 7- 4( 5) a pp l i e s . W ha ti s at i s s ue i s w hetherthe f

ai l ur e of J acks on Count y t o t ax the r oadw ay and the Spr i ng Lake D am f orm or e than thr ee de cade s s uppor t s a f i ndi ng of a n i m pl i ed ac cept ance underthe comm on la w o f th is S ta te . W e f

in d th a t it d o e s . See R i char ds on v. W ar w i ck , 8 M i s s . 131, 137 ( 1843) 2 (“ A n a c t o f th e leg isla tu re , in d e ro g a tio n o f th e c o m m o n law , is s tr ic tly c o n stru e d , an d is
c a rrie d n o fa rth e r th a n th e w o rd s o f th e a c t c a rr y it , a n d th e re m e d y is a lw a y s w ith in l egi s l at i ve contr ol
. ”) ¶31. L i kew i s e, J acks on C ounty r eci t es t hat “ i t i s s ett l ed i n our s t at e t hat m er e user by t he publ i c, w i thoutm or e, i s nots uf f i ci entt o const i tut e an i m pl i ed ac cept ance . ” Ci t y of Colum bus
v . Pay ne , 1 55 M i s s . 1 70 , 1 24 So
. 2 69 ( 19 29 )
. J a c ks on Coun ty c on t e s t s the s uf f i c i e nc y of evi dence pr es ent ed by the M cB r oom s t o s uppor ta f i ndi ng of J acks on C ou nt y’ s acc ept ance of the dam’ s dedi cat i on t o publ i c us e. B u t , notonl y di d the publ i c us e the r oadw ay over Spr i ng L ake D am f

orm or e t han t hi r ty year s as the sol e m eans of i ngr es s and egr es s i n and out of the Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on; the county a l s o r epr es ent ed t o FEM A thati tha d a cce pt ed an ob l i gati on t o m ai ntai n the prop erty. F urther, itis clearthatJackso n C ou nty decl i ned t o assess tax es a g ains t th e p rop erty sinc e a t l ea st 19 7 2
. A ll su p p o rta find ing that Jac k so n C o u n ty
acc ept ed Spr i ng L ake D am and i t s r oadw ay underthe comm on l aw of thi s St at e. ¶32. Fur therm or e, w i th r egar d t o i m pl i ed acc ept ance , thi s C our t cl ar i f i ed that“[ c] ont i nued
u se r w h e n tak e n in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e w o rk in g o f th e ro a d fo r n e a rly tw e n ty y e a rs a t p u b lic

### 20

expens e s houl d be dee m ed t o have be en a s uf f i ci entacc eptance . ” A r m s tr ong v. I taw am ba Co u n ty , 195 M i s s . 802, 16 So. 2d 752, 757 ( 1944)
. I n Arm s tr ong , thi s C our ts us t ai ned an i nj unct i on agai ns tthe A r m s tr ongs , w ho had er ect ed a ga t e i n an ef f or tt o obs tructa r oad that It a w a m b a C o u n ty c la im e d to h a v e b e e n d e d ic a te d to p u b lic u s e a n d h a d a c c e p te d
. I d . at758. T he C our tnot ed that“i tdoes notappeart hatsuch tr avel ed r out e has everbeen des i gnat ed as a publ i c r oad by an or derof the boar d of

s upervi s or s , s o f

ara s may af

f i r m at i vel y appea rf

r om the mi nut es of

the boar d, ” butthatthe evi dence s how ed “thatthe r oadw ay i n ques t i on w as
us ed as a nei ghborhood ors ett l ementr oad and w or ked by the l ocal ci t i zens of the comm uni ty,
w hen w orked a tal l , form any years pri or t o 1 92 4, and thereaft er atpu b l i c exp ense cont i nuous l y unt i l the yea r1941, w hen s uch obs truct i ons w er e pl ace d ther ei n . . . . ” I d . at753. ¶3 3
. L ikew ise, i n th e 1 9 7 3 ca se o f Hearn v. Mor r ow , thi s C our thel d thata pr i vat e r oad w as dedi cat ed t o publ i c us e and a cce pt ed by the R anki n C ounty B oar d of Super vi s or s w her e the r oadw ay has be en us ed by s chool bus es a nd the l otow ner s ; the road has been mai nt ai ned by R anki n C ou nt y by the i ns t al l at i on of 13 cul vert s on the r oa d; no r th o f

the r oa dway wat e ra nd e l e c tr i c l i ne s ha ve be e n i ns t a l l e d a nd s out h of the r oadw ay a t el eph one l i ne has been i ns t al l ed f orthe us e of

the pr operty ow ner s , a l l of

the ut i l i ty l i nes be i ng w i thi n the 50 foot ri ght
- of
- w ay d esig n ated b y th e p lat ; at th e ti m e o f th e tr ial tw o ho m es an d fi v e trail ers w ere loca ted o n l o ts so ld by th e ap p ell ee s; the lot ow n ers, o ther than ap p ell an ts, w ere us i ng the r oad w i th no r es tr i ct i ons ; an addi t i onal 228 acr es w as t o be deve l oped ut i l i zi ng s uch r oad and f r om a t otal i t

y of the ci r cum s tances s how n by the pr oof i n thi s c as e appel l ees mani f es t ed an i nt ent i on f

orthe publ i c t o ha ve and enj oy a hi ghw ay on thei rpr operty. Hearn v. Mor r ow , 272 S o. 2d 645, 647 ( M i s s . 1973) ( emphasi s added)
. T he C our thel d t hat “a publ i c r oad w as es t abl i s hed by i m pl i cat i on fr om t he ci r cumst ance s s how n by the evi dence i n thi s caus e . . . . ” I

d.

### 21

¶34
. H er e, R al ph M cB r oom t es t i f i ed w i thoutcontr adi ct i on that the road w ay crossi ng S pri ng L ake D am w as ut i l i zed b y m em bers of the p ub l i c as t he sole ent ry t o the subd i vis i on , atl east unt i l the 2006 cons truct i on of the Lee Tayl orR oad: “ the garbage m an, the m ai l m an, everyone, U PS m an. T hey al l –w el l , m att erof f act , he s t i l l comes ove r thatthi ng. B utno one had a ny pr obl ems w i th the r oad. ” H e f ur thert es t i f

i ed thatthe Spr i ng L ake D am “w as m ow ed. I tw as keptcl ean. A nd I as s um ed s om eone di d i tan d I ass um e i tw as the county. ” M cB r oom t hen sta ted , “ I sa w o n e p e rso n th a t w a s m a in tain in g it o n e tim e a n d h e w a s o n a Ja c k so n C o u n ty truck, pul l i ng one of

thos e l aw n m ow er s and he w as m ow i ng the gr as s . B utthat ’ s the onl y one thatI can s w eart o thatI e vers aw mow i ng the gr as s . But neverthel es s the gr as s w as m ow ed b y so m e o n e .” H o w e v e r, B u tch L o p e r, th e p re se n t as sis tan t ro a d m a n a g e r fo r Ja c k so n C o u n ty and pr evi ous r oad s uper i nt endentf orthe Ja cks on C ounty C entr al R oad D epart m ent , t es t i f i ed contr ar i l y thathe gave hi s road cr ew s s peci f i c i ns truct i ons nott o m ow the dam. T he r oad
cr ew s “w er e t o s t op ateac h end of the dam. ” Lopert es t i f i ed thathe ut i l i zed the dam f or i ngr es s a nd e gr e s s t o a nd f r om t he Spr i ng Lak e Sub di vi s i on , bu ttha t“ c ou nty e nd of
m ai ntenance” roa d s i gns w er e on the dam atl eas ts i nce the ea r l y 1990s
. B utL operal so tes tified th a t th e re w e re c o u n ty r o a d sig n s a n d a “ S lo w , C h ild re n a t P lay ” sig n th a t “w o u ld have be en putup by t he county. ” ¶35. G er al di ne M cB r oom t es t i f i ed that , f

r om the t i m e s he and R al ph m oved i nt o thei rnew h o m e in 1 9 8 7 , sh e g a rd e n e d a g re a t d e a l o u tsid e a n d , lik e h e r h u sb a n d , sa w Ja c k so n C o u n ty per s onnel i n Jac ks on C ounty vehi cl es m ai nt ai ni ng t he dam
. S he st at ed t hatshe s aw J acks on C ounty per s onnel cutt i ng t he g ras s “[ w ] i th a mow er , w i th a s i de mow er , and may have, on
occa s i on, come w i th j us tthe s tr ai ghtmow er . I ne verha d t o r eal l y w orry aboutthe–out s i de our

### 22

pr operty beca us e they kepti tm ow ed. ” She t es t i f i ed f ur therthatthe county once f i l l ed i n pot hol es al ong t he r oadw ay overS pr i ng L ake D am. Joe N eal , t he curr entJ acks on C ounty r oad
m a n a g e r a n d fo rm e r Ja c k so n C o u n ty W e st D iv isio n ro a d su p e rin ten d e n t, t e stifie d a lso th a t,
som e t i m e bet w een 2 00 1 an d 2 00 2, “[ o] ne o f our cr ew s acci den t al l y p at ched som e po tho l es” i n the r oadw ay overSpr i ng L ake D am. W i th r egar d t o the county’ s pl ace m entof “county end of m ai nt enanc e” s i gns , N eal t es t i f i ed that“[ t ] he onl y s i gns I s aw w er e some thatw er e pos t ed up, I don’ tknow , m aybe a yearago thats ai d the county di dn’ tm ai ntai n thi s s ect i on of t he
r oadw ay. ” ¶3 6. T hat J acks on County r e gu l a r l y mai nt a i ne d the r oa dway ov e r Spr i ng Lak e D a m w as cont es t ed atthe benc h tr i al
. T he cha ncel l orhel d “the M c Br oo ms’ t e s t i mony r e ga r di ng i s ol at ed i nci dent s of

m ai nt enanc e by t he C ounty t o be i ns uf f i ci entt o pr ove i m pl i ed ac cept ance by the C ounty. ” The evi dence pr es ent ed by the M cB room s thatJ acks on C ounty atl eas tonce ha d
m ow ed the Spr i ng Lake D am, had er ect ed county s i gns al ong the dam’ s r oadw ay, and once had f i l l ed i n a pothol e on the r oadw ay, al one, i s t oo att enuat ed t o w arr anta fi ndi ng of i m pl i ed
a c c e p tan c e b y th e c o u n ty . B u t th a t e v id e n c e , v iew e d in c o n ju n c tio n w ith th e Ja c k so n C o u n ty P lan n in g C o m m iss io n ’s lette r to F E M A in w h ich it ac k n o w led g e d m a in ten a n c e re sp o n sib ili ty f orthe dam and i t s r oadw ay and the t es t i m ony tha tthe dam neverw as t axed by the county, pr eponder at e i n f

avorof a f i ndi ng of a n i m pl i ed acc ept ance by the county underthe comm on l aw of thi s St at e. A l l e s s ent i al publ i c s ervi ces , i ncl udi ng mai l s ervi ces , f i r e, pol i ce, and anyone else d esirou s o f en teri n g o r de p arti n g the S p ri n g L ak e S u b d ivisi o n , w ere req u ir ed fo r m o re than thi r ty year s t o us e the r oadw ay overSpr i ng L ake D am. Fur ther , r oads appr oved,
acc ept ed, and m ai nt ai ned by the county w ith in the Spr i ng L ake Subdi vi s i on w er e ac ces s ed by

### Ja cks on County ’s bri ef st at es that “ whil e t

he c ounty a cc ept ed the roads within t he 3 

### le galdes c ripti ono f

thes ub di vi s i on , whe n the y a pp r ov e d thep l at , the y di d no t a c c ept the roadwayov er the d am.” 23 county vehi cl es and w or k cr ew s vi a the r oadw ay overS pri ng L ake D am. C ons i der i ng the 3 t ot al i ty of

the ci r cumst ance s , w e f i nd that“a publ i c r oad w as est abl i s hed by i m pl i cat i on f r om th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s h o w n b y th e e v id e n c e in th is c a u s e . . . .” Hearn , 272 So. 2d at647. 

### ¶37. We a gre e wi th t

he di ss ent that “ thechance ll or had all of thi s evi denc e in front of he r, as well as th e ben efit o f o bserv ing th e p arties durin g the trial.” (E mph asis in o rigin al.) But in Skate s v . Br yant, the only ca seupon whic h thedis se nt rel ie s t o suppor t i ts posi ti on, this Court hel d that t

he c hanc el lor

commi tt ed no m ani fe st er ror in f indin g that no comm on law dedication had o c cur

re d, s inc e “ the rewas abs olut ely no ev ide ncethat George Br yant intende d to do na te th e ro ad

to pu blic u seor

to be nef it thepubli c in any way. Theroa d was int ende d to b e usedbythe resid ents o f the trailer park , a restrictive gro up of peop le, no t the p ub lic in gene ra l. ” Skate

s v . Br yant, 863 So. 2 d 9 07 , 91 1 (M iss. 20 03 ) (emph asis add ed). H ere, ample evi denc e wa s adduc ed that thel and had be en bo th dedi cate d to publ ic use and acc epted by Ja cks on County, but t

he chance ll or’ s ana lys is did not t akeint o ac count thecommon l aw of ded icationandacceptan ce. ¶ 38
. We do not

f ault thec hanc e l l or

f or h e r f i ndi ng s o f

f a c t ; but the a

ppli cati on of the
common law of

de dic ation and a cc ept anc e c onstit ute s a ques ti on of l aw, subj ec t t o de nov o reviewbythis C ourt. See L ow r ey , 25 So. 3d at625 ( ci t i ng Ches ney , 9 1 0 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 6 0 ). 

### The chance ll or he ld t

hat “ theMc Broom s’ t es timony re garding is olate d inci dent s of maint enance bythe C ounty ” w as “in sufficient to p rov e imp lied acceptan ce bythe C ounty ,” since “M iss.

### 24

Co de Ann. § 65 -7-4 mandates that the countyroad register shall hav e prio rity.” W ith utmost re spe ct to t he l earne d chance ll or, that ana lys is does not a ppear t o havetaken into a cc ount t he
common law of dedic ation and a cc ept anc e. As west at ed a bove, Sec ti on 65-7- 4 appl ie s t o a “conf l i ctbetw een the r egi s t erand the of f i ci al map, ” a s cena r i o i nappos i t e t o the pr es entone. 

### Th e chan cellor thus erredas a matter of law
. ¶ 3 9
. W h ile th e c h a n c e llo r c o rre c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t J a c k so n C o u n ty w a s n o t o b lig a ted to
m ai nt ai n the r oadw ay overSpr i ng Lake D am by vi r tue of the dedi cat i on st at utes , t he chanc el l ore r r ed by notf i ndi ng thatJ acks on Count y w as s o obl i gat ed underthe comm on l aw of dedi cat i on and ac cept ance . CO NC L US I ON ¶40. Spr i ng L ake D am a nd the r oadw ay over i t w er e dedi cat ed t o publ i c us e and ac cept ed by J acks on C ou nty i n acc or dance w i th the comm on l aw of thi s s t at e. Fi ndi ng thatt he C h an ce ry C o u rto f Jac k so n C o u n ty erred in n o t so fin d ing , w e re v erse the tri al co u rt ’s ju d g m e n t a n d re n d e r j u d g m e n t f o r t h e M c B ro o m s . ¶ 4 1
. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W A L L E R , C .J ., D I C K I N S O N , P .J ., C H A N D L E R , K I N G A N D C O L E M A N , J J ., CO NC UR . L AMAR , J . , DI S S E NT S W I T H S EP AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NE D B Y R AN DO L P H, P . J . P I E RC E , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . L AMAR , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶42
. T his C ou rtw i l l no trever se a chan cel l or’ s deci si on un l ess he rf i ndi ngs w er e “ m a n if

e stly
w r ong orcl ear l

y er r oneous . ” Ska te s v. Bry ant , 8 6 3 S o . 2 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). A n d “ [t]h is s ta n d a rd [a p p lie s ] eve n w hen conf l i ct i ng evi dence w as pr es ent ed by the par t i es . ” I

d . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).

### 25

¶43. T he cha ncel l or ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons of

l aw ar e, i n m y vi ew , very thor ough and s uppor t ed by l aw . T he m aj or i ty s pends ni ne pages of i t s opi ni on e ki ng outevi dence ( on b e h a lf o f th e M c B ro o m s) th a t p u rp o rte d ly s h o w s th a t Ja c k so n C o u n ty “ a c c e p ted ” th e ir dedi cat i on of

t hei rl and. A m ong t he evi dence r el i ed on by the maj or i ty i s a l ett erf r om 1979 thats t at es that“J acks on county di d notacc eptm ai nt enanc e of t his spil l w ay as partof t he Spr i ng L ake V i l l age Subdi vi s i on . . . . ” Y et , des pi t e thi s cl earl anguage , the maj or i ty t akes the phr as e “J acks on C ount y had no c hoi ce butt o m ai nt ai n thi s publ i c w ay” a s evi dence that Jackson C ou n ty affi rm at i vely had accep t ed the M cB room s’ ded i cat i on . T he m aj ori ty als o p lac e s m u c h e m p h a sis o n Ja c k so n C o u n ty ’s d e c isio n n o t to tax th e ro a d w a y , fin d in g tha t th is d e c is io n “ d e m o n s tr a te d im p lie d a c c e p ta n c e .” ¶44. B utt he pr obl em w i th t hi s anal ys i s i s thatthe cha ncel l orhad a ll of thi s evi dence i n f

r ont
o f h e r, as w e ll as th e b e n e fit o f o b se rv in g th e p a rties d u rin g th e trial. S h e iss u e d a w e llr eas oned opi ni on s uppor t ed by the l aw , f i ndi ng i t“cl earthatJ acks on C ounty has never fo rm a lly re c o g n ize d th e ro a d w a y o v e r th e d a m a s a c o u n ty ro a d o r p u b lic e a se m e n t.” T h is C our ti s nott o r ever s e herunl es s s he com m i t t ed m ani f es ter r or , even i n t he f

ace of conf l i ct i ng evi dence
. I n m y vi ew , the maj or i ty has t aken gr eatpains t o hi ghl i ghtal l of the evi dence f avor abl e t o t he M cB r oom s and ul t i m at el y s ubs t i tut ed i t s ow n j udgm entf orthatof

t he chanc el l ori n i t s f

i ndi ng of “i m pl i ed ac cept ance . ” ¶45. I m us tal s o addr es s the m aj or i ty’ s s t at ementthat“the cha ncel l or ’ s anal ys i s di d not t ake i nt o acc ountthe comm on l aw of dedi cat i on and acce pt ance . ” I f r ankl y do notknow how t he
m a jo ri ty c a n r e a c h th e c o n c lu sio n th a t th e c h a n c e llo r d id n o t “ta k e in to a c c o u n t” comm on-

### To be clear, everyo ne ag rees that th e McB roo ms ded icated th eir pro pertyto p ub lic 4 

### use an d th at the o nlyreal issue is wheth er Jackso n C ountyacceptedit. 26 l aw acc ept ance . A tthe concl usi on of the tr i al , the cha ncel l orr eques t ed thatboth part i es 4
s ubm i tpr opos ed f

i ndi ngs of f

actand concl us i ons of l aw . T he M cB r oom s ’ pr opos ed f i ndi ngs of f a c ta nd c on c l us i on s of

l a w i nc l ud e d tw o p a ge s de t a i l i ng the do c tr i ne of c omm on- l aw d e d ica tio n a n d a c c e p tan c e , alo n g w ith the ev id e n c e the y th o u g h t su p p o rte d its a p p lica tio n in thi s cas e. I do no tsee h ow the maj or i ty can s o eas i l y concl ude thatthe cha ncel l ordi d not
c o n sid e r th is a rg u m e n t. ¶46. O n the contr ary, the cha ncel l or ’ s ow n f i ndi ngs i ndi cat e thats he di d cons i deri t . I n her Ju d g m e n t, th e c h a n c e llo r n o ted th a t “[t]h e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e co u rt h a s sta ted th a t a p u b lic
ro a d m a y b e c re a te d b y p re s c ri p tio n , dedi cat i on or pur s uantt o s tat ut or y pr ovisi ons .” ( E m phas i s added. ) A nd l at eron i n he rJ udgm ent , the cha ncel l ors peci f i cal l y s t at ed that“[ t ] he C our thas al r eady f

ound thatJ acks on C ounty neve rf or m al l y ori m pl i edl y accepted the
r oadw ay overthe dam. ” ( E m phas i s ad ded
. ) I ti s cl eart o m e thatthe cha ncel l orcons i der ed th e c o m m o n -l a w d e d ic a tio n th e o ry a n d re je c te d it. ¶4 7 . A n d fi n all y , if the m ajority ’s so le rea so n for rev ersa l h ere is the ch an c e llo r’s fai lure to “ tak e in to a c c o u n t” c o m m o n -la w a c c e p tan c e (as q u o ted ab o v e ), th e n the p ro p e r re m e d y is t o r ever s e and r emand w i th or der s f orthe cha ncel l ort o do s o, i ns t ead of maki ng f

i ndi ngs of factbased o n d i sputed evidence an d rende ri ng j ud gm ent i n favor of the M cB room s. F or these
re a s o n s , I r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t. RANDOL P H, P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.