Case Name: CITY OF MADISON v. Steve BRYAN
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2000-05-11
Citations: 763 So. 2d 162
Docket Number: No. 97-CA-01205-SCT
Parties: CITY OF MADISON v. Steve BRYAN.
Judges: PITTMAN AND BANKS, P.JJ., MILLS, WALLER AND COBB, JJ„ CONCUR. McRAE, J„ DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY DIAZ, J. SMITH, J„ NOT PARTICIPATING.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 763
Pages: 162–176

Head Matter:
CITY OF MADISON v. Steve BRYAN.
No. 97-CA-01205-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 11, 2000.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 2000.
John Hedglin, Madison, Attorney for Appellant.
Steven H. Smith, Jackson, Attorney for Appellee.

Opinion:
PRATHER, Chief Justice,
for the Court:
¶ 1. This case comes to this Court on appeal of the City of Madison (the City) regarding Steve Bryan's failed attempt seeking approval by the City to erect an apartment complex to be known as The Madison. After the City failed to act on Bryan's request for a budding permit, Bryan appealed, by bill of exceptions, to the Madison County Circuit Court which initially ordered the City to approve Bryan's plan. However, the circuit court reversed its position and held the issue to be moot. Afterwards, the circuit court, applying Rule 11, awarded costs and attorney's fees to Bryan.
¶ 2. We find that the issue is indeed moot as Bryan did not have a valid option on the property at issue here when he filed his appeal to circuit court. The circuit court was correct to hold the issue moot, but it abused its discretion in awarding Bryan costs and attorney's fees. The City's defending its actions in circuit court and appealing to this Court were not frivolous, because "a pleading or motion is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 11 only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope of success." Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So.2d 188, 195 (Miss.1995). Here, it cannot be said that the City had no hope of success because the City ultimately prevailed, as Bryan had no valid option on the property at the time he filed his third bill of exceptions. It is also questionable whether Bryan met the requirements of Rule 11 or our caselaw which is necessary in order to prevail on the attorney fees issue. Whether the circuit judge in imposing damages against the City actually meant to apply authority other than Rule 11 is unknown, but nonetheless is a legitimate issue. We decline to speculate regarding what authority the circuit court was applying to this case in awarding sanctions. We hold that the circuit court failed to set out sufficient findings of fact, conclusions of law, and clear authority pursuant to our case law in its order awarding costs and attorney's fees. We affirm the circuit court regarding the primary issue being moot, but reverse and remand for a new hearing on the costs and attorney's fees awarded to Bryan.
FACTS
¶ 3. Steve Bryan attempted to obtain the approval of the governing authorities of the City of Madison to build an apartment complex within the City. There have been three bills of exceptions taken by Bryan to the Circuit Court of Madison County. The third bill of exceptions is the subject of this appeal (the previous two were not appealed further than the Circuit Court of Madison County). This appeal concerns a development or site plan for The Madison submitted by Bryan on March 18, 1994. A letter dated April 24, 1995, executed by Kenneth F. Pritchard, owner of the proposed project site of The Madison, indicates that Bryan's option to purchase contract expired on September 30, 1994. After the site plan was submitted, it was reviewed by the City's public works Director, Fire Chief and Southern Consultants, P.E. a project engineer specially employed by the City for this particular project. Their input resulted in the drafting of a revised development plan by Bryan. This revised plan was filed with the City's Planning and Zoning Director on June 8, 1995.
¶ 4. Pursuant to Madison Ordinance 2408.04, the plan was forwarded to Madison's Zoning and Planning Commission which, on June 12, 1995, met for approximately five to six hours and discussed the proposed plan in detail. At the close of the June 12 meeting, the Commission unanimously voted to approve the plan subject to the resolution of six (6) remaining "punch-list" items which would have to be resolved satisfactorily by Bryan.
¶ 5. The plan was placed on the agenda for the June 13, 1995, meeting of the Board of Aldermen and Mayor. Four of the City's five aldermen and the Mayor were present. As the governing body was about to consider Bryan's plan, the Mayor announced that she had decided to remove the item from the agenda and that no action would be taken regarding Bryan's plan. She insisted that she needed to have a transcript of the Planning Committee's meeting before passing on the merits of Bryan's plan.
¶ 6. Thereafter, three of the aldermen (a majority of the board present) voted to replace the item on the agenda. The May- or then produced a typewritten "Statement of Objection and Veto" and read the same into the record. There were insufficient votes to override the Mayor's veto.
¶7. Aggrieved by the City's inaction, Bryan filed a bill of exceptions on June 23, 1995, and appealed to the Circuit Court of Madison County. On February 7, 1996, the court ordered the City of Madison to immediately issue Bryan a building permit and approve the site plan, staging plan and development plan.
¶ 8. Afterwards, acting on a Motion for Reconsideration on March 28, 1996, the circuit court reversed its prior ruling and held that the issue of the option was moot, as Bryan no longer had a valid option on the property which had since been sold to a third party. However, the circuit court preserved the rights of the parties as to claims for damages, if any. The circuit court, however, did not rule on the lone remaining motion of Bryan for attorney's fees.
¶ 9. Thereafter, on August 29, 1997, the circuit court did rule on Bryan's motion for attorney fees which was filed on February 16, 1996. The circuit court awarded Bryan Rule 11 costs and attorney's fees in the amount of $19,668.45.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
¶ 10. The City appealed to this Court on September 26, 1997, presenting the following issues for review:
I. UNDER MISSISSIPPI LAW, CAN BRYAN APPEAL AN ALLEGED FAILURE TO ACT BY THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES OF A MUNICIPALITY TO CIRCUIT COURT?
II. WHERE A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE IS SUBJECT TO LEGITIMATE DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS, SHOULD THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT SUPER-CEDE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNING AUTHORITIES?
III. DO THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES "WAIVE" THEIR RIGHT TO REVIEW ANY ASPECT OF THE SITE PLAN, INCLUDING THE STAGING PLAN, BY REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE PLAN?
IV. DID BRYAN HAVE STANDING TO PURSUE HIS APPEAL TO CIRCUIT COURT?
V. WAS THERE ANY LEGAL BASIS FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE'S AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AFTER DISMISSING BRYAN'S APPEAL AS BEING MOOT?
¶ 11. Bryan contests the City's argument of lack of standing and that the primary issue is moot. He also argued that the circuit judge was correct to award attorney's fees.
ANALYSIS
¶ 12. Because the issues of standing and whether Bryan's interest in the property was moot control the outcome of the case at bar, only Issues IV and V warrant discussion.
IV.
¶ 13. Much of the dispute centered around whether Bryan had fully complied with the City's strict zoning requirements regarding his site plan. Each time the aldermen acted, the Mayor vetoed that action, and Bryan appealed. Each instance was clearly a separate legislative act by the City. At the close of the June 12, 1995, meeting of the City of Madison's Zoning and Planning Commission, after a five to six-hour discussion, the plan was approved. However, the "resolution of six (6) punch-list items" by Bryan still remained. In other words, as of June 12, 1995, there still remained six items on the site plan with which Bryan had not complied.
¶ 14. At the meeting of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen on June 13, 1995, the Mayor remained concerned and wanted a transcript of the Zoning Commission's June 12th meeting prior to making a determination on this issue. A majority of the Board wanted to proceed, and the Mayor allegedly removed the consideration of the site plan from the agenda and vetoed the Board's action. Regardless, no action was taken on the site plan on June 13,1995.
¶ 15. The subject of this third bill of exceptions promptly filed by Steve Bryan against the City of Madison concerns its refusal to approve the development or site plan which was submitted to the City on March 17, 1995. As previously noted, the Zoning Commission hearing was conducted on June 12,1995. Bryan's approval by the Zoning Commission was scheduled for the City's June 13, 1995, meeting. However, Bryan's exclusive six-month contract of March 18, 1994, to purchase the property in question had apparently expired on September 30, 1994. The issues of standing, mootness and res judicata are all raised before this Court for consideration by the City of Madison.
¶ 16. The City argues that Bryan has "no standing when he has no present existent actual title or interest in the property." This Court has said that "[ujnder our authorities there must be a present, existent actionable title or interest which must be completed at the time the cause of action is filed." Crawford Commercial Constrors., Inc. v. Marine Indus. Residential Insulation, Inc., 437 So.2d 15, 16 (Miss.1983) (emphasis added) (citing American Book Co. v. Vandiver, 181 Miss. 518, 178 So. 598 (1938)). See also Shaw v. Shaw, 603 So.2d 287, 294 (Miss.1992). The City alleges that Bryan did not hold an option to purchase the site at issue at the time he filed his action. There is documentary evidence in this record which establishes that the six-month option contract had in fact expired on September 30, 1994.
¶ 17. This Court has assumed, without specifically being called upon to decide, that optionees have standing to challenge. See Moore v. Madison County Bd. of Supervisors, 227 So.2d 862 (Miss.1969)(ap-plicant for rezoning held option on land contingent on changing of zoning to commercial). Thus, if Bryan's option had expired before he filed the appeal, then he does not have standing.
¶ 18. The City alleges that a letter dated April 24, 1995, and signed by Kenneth F. Pritchard, President of First Southeast Corporation, owner of the proposed project site, is record evidence that Bryan's option to purchase contract expired on September 30, 1994. Additionally, correspondence from the landowner indicates that Bryan's actions were in violation of his directive that Bryan cease making further representations to third parties regarding the use of the property which is at issue here. Therefore, the City argues that Bryan had no standing to file his bill of exceptions on June 23,1995.
¶ 19. Bryan responds that he did have standing because he originally filed a site plan on March 18, 1994. Moreover, Bryan claims he entered into a contract (dated March 22, 1993) to purchase one-half of the property in question, which ran through April 1, 1995. Furthermore, Bryan alleges that only after the City refused to approve his original site plan submission was he required to enter the contract relied upon by the City above. Thus, he claims that the City is taking "advantage of the delay inevitably and lamentably attendant upon the appellate process so as to render moot, what would otherwise be a live and justiciable controversy." City of Durant v. Humphreys County Mem'l Hosp., 587 So.2d 244, 249 (Miss.1991). Whether Bryan ever fully complied with required zoning and building requirements of the City has always been in dispute, and remained so at the very end of this controversy, as noted by the "punch list" of six items remaining to be complied with as late as the June 12, 1995 meeting of the Zoning Commission.
¶ 20. "Standing" is a jurisdictional issue which may be raised by any party or the Court at any time. Williams v. Stevens, 390 So.2d 1012, 1014 (Miss.1980). In order for Bryan to have standing in this matter, he must demonstrate that the City's action had an adverse effect on property in which he has an interest. White Cypress Lakes Dev. Corp. v. Hertz, 541 So.2d 1031, 1034 (Miss.1989). We find that when Bryan filed his bill of exceptions with the circuit court on June 23, 1995, the record reveals that he was not the owner of the title, nor did he have valid option to purchase, a valid contract to purchase, or a mortgage or any other encumbrance upon the property. Therefore, Bryan did not have standing to appeal.
¶ 21. Alternatively and regardless of Bryan's original standing, the record is clear (and Bryan admits) that Bryan's option to purchase the site expired before the case ever made it to this Court. Even considering the latter date of April 1, 1995, submitted by Bryan as the date of expiration of his option to purchase, the contract still would have expired over two months before the submission to the Zoning Commission for a hearing and consideration of the site plan, therefore, Bryan had no valid interest.
¶ 22. This Court has held that it will not adjudicate moot questions. Bradley v. State, 355 So.2d 675, 676 (Miss.1978) (detainee's petition for habeas corpus was moot when detainee's sentence expired); Stevens Enters., Inc. v. McDonnell, 226 Miss. 826, 827, 85 So.2d 468 (1956)(where sheriff had already sold all of taxpayer's property under sales tax warrant, action to enjoin sheriff from proceeding further with sale was moot); Sheldon v. Ladner, 205 Miss. 264, 270, 38 So.2d 718, 719 (1949) (where general election had already passed, appeal from dismissal of mandamus petition seeking to compel Secretary of State to place only petitioners' names on ballot was dismissed as moot).
¶ 23. Furthermore, this Court has held that "[c]ases in which an actual controversy existed at trial but the controversy has expired at the time of review, become moot. We have held that the review procedure should not be allowed for the purpose of settling abstract or academic questions, and that we have no power to issue advisory opinions." Allred v. Webb, 641 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Miss.1994). See also Insured Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. State ex rel. Patterson, 242 Miss. 547, 135 So.2d 703 (1961); McLendon v. Laird, 211 Miss. 662, 52 So.2d 497 (1951). Such is the situation here as we find that Bryan had no valid option at the time he appealed to circuit court.
¶ 24. On March 28,1996, the lower court, acting upon a Motion for Reconsideration, held the issue of the option was moot due to the sale of the property to a third party. We therefore affirm the lower court and agree that the primary issue regarding the option is moot.
y.
¶ 25. Next, we consider the issue of whether costs and attorney fees were properly awarded subsequent to the circuit court ruling that the primary issue was moot. We note at the outset that the circuit court stated that it was imposing damages by authority of M.R.C.P. 11.
¶ 26. The standard of review of the circuit court's decision to grant costs and attorney fees is abuse of discretion. Wallace v. Jones, 572 So.2d 371 (Miss.1990). See also Vicksburg Refin., Inc. v. Energy Resources, Ltd., 512 So.2d 901 (Miss.1987); Ladner v. Ladner, 436 So.2d 1366, 1370 (Miss.1983).
¶ 27. The City argues that since on motion for reconsideration the lower court ruled that in fact the issue of the option was moot due to the sale of the property in question to a third party, therefore, Bryan is not entitled to attorney fees. In order to prevail, Bryan has a two fold standard to meet. M.R.C.P. 11 authorizes monetary sanctions to pay the non-offending party's reasonable expense, including attorney fees. M.R.C.P. 11(b). In Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So.2d 188, 195 (Miss.1995), this Court held that "Sanctions under M.R.C.P. 11 'are warranted when the pleading or motion is 1) frivolous or 2) is filed for- the purpose of harassment or delay.' " This Court has stated that "Though a case may be weak or "light-headed," that is not sufficient to label it frivolous. Nichols v. Munn, 565 So.2d 1132, 1137 (Miss.1990). The fact that a case is weak is not sufficient to find that it was brought to harass. Brown v. Hartford Ins. Co., 606 So.2d 122, 127 (Miss.1992). Here the City did not bring the action in circuit court, but rather, Bryan appealed by bill of exceptions from the City's supposed inaction on his request for a building permit to construct The Madison apartments. Nor can we allow ourselves to be influenced by the two prior bill of exceptions mentioned, as they are not before us, but rather only Bryan's third bill of exceptions and motion for attorney fees. Besides, although trial courts do have inherent authority to award damages such as costs and attorney fees, not all misconduct would warrant such an award. In Aeroglide Corp. v. Whitehead, 433 So.2d 952 (Miss.1983), involving allegations of misconduct by defense counsel during cross-examination which caused a mistrial, and trial counsel submitted their costs and attorney fees lost due to the mistrial and defense counsel's actions, this Court stated:
We agree with the learned trial judge that all courts possess the inherent authority to control the proceedings before them including the conduct of the participants . Upon the narrow issue presented we hold that the inherent authority of the trial court did not extend to awarding of damages as in a tort action for litigation expenses irretrievably lost under the facts presented herein.
Id. at 953. The case at bar is likened somewhat to Whitehead, in that Bryan alleges that because of the City's actions he has suffered and incurred costs and attorney fees to which he is entitled to be awarded by the trial court. The trial court awarded such costs and attorney fees by applying Rule 11 sanctions against the City. As in Whitehead, here, misconduct by the City, if any, may not necessarily warrant an award of costs and attorney's fees. Bryan complains that the City stalled his attempted construction of The Madison to the point that he no longer possessed a valid option on the property. However, the record also reflects that some of the delay can be attributed to Bryan who, for some unknown reason, did not even proceed with the construction of The Madison project when it was initially approved by the City. Subsequently, many citizens surrounding the project began to strongly voice their objections about The Madison project to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen which may have contributed to some of the subsequent events which occurred, due to the Mayor and some board members responding to their citizens' concerns about the project.
¶ 28. Whether the pleading or motion is frivolous is the first standard which Bryan must meet in order to prevail. This Court has held that "[A] pleading or mo tion is frivolous within the meaning of Rule 11 only when, objectively speaking, the pleader or movant has no hope of success." Leaf River, 661 So.2d at 195 (citing Stevens v. Lake, 615 So.2d 1177, 1184 (Miss.1993)(quoting Tricon Metals & Servs., Inc. v. Topp, 537 So.2d 1331, 1335 (Miss.1989))).
¶ 29. Regarding the second standard required, we note that the Leaf River Court stated further, "The second standard, a claim interposed for harassment or delay, generally cannot be met: 'where a plaintiff has a viable claim.' " Id. at 195 (citing Stringer v. Lucas, 608 So.2d 1351, 1359 (Miss.1992) (quoting Bean v. Broussard, 587 So.2d 908, 913 (Miss.1991))). The City's appeal "can hardly be considered frivolous," as clearly there was reasonable hope of success, even though "a case is weak." Brown, 606 So.2d at 127. Here, in fact the City ultimately prevailed in the circuit court on the primary issue of the building permit which was the subject of the bill of exceptions. Five months after that ruling that the circuit court allowed costs and attorney fees applying Rule 11 sanctions on an issue that was moot. This Court, in Jackson County Sch. Bd. v. Osborn, 605 So.2d 731, 734 (Miss.1992), held that if the underlying case is moot, the issue of awarding attorney's fees is moot. In the case at bar, the record reflects that at the time Bryan filed this third bill of exceptions on June 25, 1995, in fact, he did not have a valid option on the property as his option expired September 30, 1994. Osborn thus appears to be very analogous to the case at bar, if not controlling law, regarding award of attorney's fees to a losing party where the underlying issue is moot.
¶ 30. We also note that in its short order, the lower court failed to cite sufficient reasons in support of clear authority for the award of costs and attorney fees pursuant to Rule 11. The lower court only mentioned its memorandum opinion and order of February 7, 1996, which upon examination, is of little or no help as to the court's reasoning, authority, or support for awarding costs and sanctions. Additionally, the comments of the lower court refer to all three of the bills of exception in imposing sanctions, when, as previously noted, each bill of exception is a separate distinct legislative act of the City. The cause of action before this Court only involves the third bill of exceptions. Yet, the circuit judge should not be faulted in this difficult, close and convoluted case. The issue of whether the City violated its ordinance or state law is indeed a debatable factual issue for the lower court to decide, and both parties presented contrastive evidence in support of their respective positions. The more difficult question however is: On what authority did the lower court impose sanctions? We note that the circuit judge stated that he was imposing sanctions based upon Rule 11. Whether the circuit judge erred in that choice of Rule 11 and actually meant some other authority as suggested by the dissent is unknown. Apparently, the City and Bryan believed that the trial judge actually utilized Rule 11 since both parties' briefs solely cite to Rule 11 sanctions. We would have to speculate from this order as to sufficient support and clear authority, in view of our case law, that the trial court found for imposing sanctions upon the City. This we decline to do.
¶ 31. Therefore, we reverse and remand the trial judge's award of costs and attorney's fees under Rule 11 in the amount of $19,668.45 for the reasons cited above. We' also must find that the lower court abused its discretion in failing to cite suffi cient findings of fact, conclusions of law and clear authority in support of its award of sanctions.
CONCLUSION
¶ 32. This Court thus finds that the issue of the validity of Bryan's option was indeed moot when he filed his bill of exceptions in the circuit court. Bryan had no valid option at that time. The circuit court ultimately on Motion for Reconsideration, found that the issue was moot. We, therefore, affirm the lower court's ultimate order dismissing the case as moot, but we reverse the lower court's award of costs and attorney's fees and remand this case for a new hearing and decision by the lower court regarding any award of costs and attorney's fees to Bryan.
¶ 33. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
PITTMAN AND BANKS, P.JJ., MILLS, WALLER AND COBB, JJ" CONCUR. McRAE, J" DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY DIAZ, J. SMITH, J" NOT PARTICIPATING.
. Other states have specifically held that an option holder has a sufficient property interest to initiate a request for a zoning change. See Hatch v. Fiscal Court of Fayette County, 242 S.W.2d 1018, 1022 (Ky.1951); Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Board of Aldermen of Town of Chapel Hill, 284 N.C. 458, 202 S.E.2d 129 (1974).
. Bryan also filed suit against the City in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and that suit has already been decided. Bryan v. City of Madison, No. 3:97-cv-73WS (S.D.Miss. Mar. 31, 1999), appeal pending, 5th Cir. No. 99-60305. The district court, citing the circuit court's order finding the issue was moot, also ruled, inter alia that the issue of the option to build The Madison was moot, because the property was sold to a third party who had a different purpose in mind for the property at issue here.
. The dissent claims that the circuit judge's order contained a typographical error in imposing "Rule 11" sanctions, and that damages were partially awarded to Bryan as recompense for the City's wrongdoing per City of Durant v. Laws Constr. Co., 721 So.2d 598 (Miss.1998). Such claims only further support the majority view that this Court cannot determine with any degree of certainty under what support and authority the trial court was imposing sanctions against the City.