Case Name: M.C. ROGERS and Abe Laudermilk v. OKTIBBEHA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and Cecil Hamilton, President
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1999-10-07
Citations: 749 So. 2d 966
Docket Number: No. 1998-CA-01257-SCT
Parties: M.C. ROGERS and Abe Laudermilk v. OKTIBBEHA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and Cecil Hamilton, President.
Judges: PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, SMITH AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING. COBB, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 749
Pages: 966–972

Head Matter:
M.C. ROGERS and Abe Laudermilk v. OKTIBBEHA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and Cecil Hamilton, President.
No. 1998-CA-01257-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Oct. 7, 1999.
Nancy H. Stuart, West Point, Attorney for Appellants.
H. Russell Rogers, Starkville, Attorney for Appellees.

Opinion:
MILLS, Justice, for the Court:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶ 1. M.C. Rogers and Abraham Lauder-milk were sued by Oktibbeha County in separate actions in the Oktibbeha County Justice Court, where demand was made for judgments against them in the sums of $307.25 and $326.75 respectively, for the "unpaid balance due for the collection of household garbage." Following adverse judgments by the Justice Court, each landowner filed a Notice of Appeal in the Ok-tibbeha County Circuit Court. The Circuit Court judge consolidated the two cases, conducted a de novo bench trial, and ruled in favor of Oktibbeha County, finding that Rogers and Laudermilk must pay. In this case of first impression in Mississippi, this Court affirms the judgment of the Oktib-beha County Circuit Court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
¶ 2. In September, 1993, Oktibbeha County initiated curbside collection and disposal of garbage pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-17 (1995), which became effective in 1992. Pursuant to the statutory authority, Oktibbeha County assessed a garbage fee in the amount of $9.75 per month for each residence. Rogers and Laudermilk chose not to pay from the inception of the program. Each lived in rural Oktibbeha County and disposed of all his household garbage and rubbish on his own land. They did not need, did not want, and did not use the county collection and disposal services. Nevertheless, they were billed each month by the county. When they refused to pay, Oktibbeha County filed suit seeking the unpaid fees.
¶ 3. The facts available from the record before the Court are sparse. The transcript of the bench trial consists of only twenty pages of testimony, and no exhibits were introduced in support of testimony of either side. The testimony of Rogers and Laudermilk paints a picture of a simple rural life. They consume little, waste little, recycle, and dispose of the very little that is left, often by burning it with rubbish on their land. Laudermilk testified that he needed the ashes for his plum trees.
¶ 4. The only other witness called was the president of the Oktibbeha County Board of Supervisors, who actually was called by counsel for the landowners but was not considered as an adverse witness. The essence of his testimony was that there had been no complaints from any individuals or authorities concerning the property of Rogers or Laudermilk; that he did not have any information which showed that either Rogers or Laudermilk caused Oktibbeha County to collect or dispose of any of their garbage or rubbish at any time; and that the Board does not allow any exemption from the monthly payments for anyone.
¶ 5. On July 21, 1998, the circuit judge ruled in favor Oktibbeha County and ordered Rogers and Laudermilk to pay the user fee. Aggrieved by the judge's ruling, Rogers and Laudermilk appealed to this Court, raising the following issue:
Whether Rogers and Laudermilk together with all other resident citizens of Oktibbeha County are required to pay for the cost of residential solid waste collection/disposal, regardless of use.
ANALYSIS
¶ 6. Oktibbeha County established its garbage disposal system pursuant to Sec tion 19-5-17, of the Mississippi Code of 1972 which reads in pertinent part:
. the board of supervisors of any county in the state shall provide for the collection and disposal of garbage and the disposal of rubbish, and for that purpose is required to establish, operate and maintain a garbage and/or rubbish disposal system or systems . and, if it so desires, to establish, maintain and collect rates, fees and charges for collecting and disposing of such garbage and/or rubbish . All persons in the county generating garbage shall utilize a garbage collection and disposal system....
. the board of supervisors of such county shall have the authority to initiate a civil action to recover any delinquent fees and charges for collecting and disposing of such garbage and/or rubbish....
Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-17 (1995) (emphasis added).
¶ 7. Section 19-5-21(2) also gives counties the authority to assess and collect fees for its garbage disposal system. It reads is pertinent part:
In addition to or in lieu of any other method authorized to defray the cost of establishing and operating the system provided for in Section 19-5-17, the board of supervisors of any county that has established a garbage and/or rubbish collection and/or disposal system may assess and collect fees or charges to defray the costs of such services. The board of supervisors may assess and collect the fees or charges from each single family residential generator of garbage and/or rubbish....
Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-21(2)(1995).
¶ 8. Rogers and Laudermilk are clearly "generators of garbage" for purposes of the above cited statute. Their testimony at trial absolutely establishes this fact:
Question: But you generate some garbage?
Mr. Rogers: It be something like a paper sack or newspapers they leave in the box that I don't need.
Question: Do you burn it?
Mr. Rogers: I take it and burn it.
Question: What do you do with the cans and the plastic wrappers and that type of thing that come off the food you buy? Where do you put those?
Mr. Rogers: I put it in there and I burn it with the rest of the paper.
¶ 9. The cross-examination of Lauder-milk was as follows in part:
Question: And what do you do with the milk cartons and the bread wrappers and the butter wrappers when you get through using the food?
Mr. Laudermilk: Well, there's so much of it. Sometimes there's a butter carton a month....
¶ 10. It is clear from the record that both of them generated, produced, manufactured and created garbage. Therefore, under sections 19-5-17 and 19-5-21(2) both Rogers and Laudermilk are required to utilize the county's garbage collection and disposal system and pay the requisite fees.
¶ 11. Rogers and Laudermilk contend that they do not have to use the county's garbage disposal system because they are exempt under section 17-17-13 which reads in pertinent part: "Nothing in this chapter shall prevent an individual or firm from disposing of solid waste from his own household or business upon his own land-" Miss.Code Ann. § 17-17-13 (1995). However, Rogers and Laudermilk overlook the fact that section 17-17-13 applies only to garbage disposal systems established under Title 17, known as the "Solid Wastes Disposal Law of 1974." The exemption applies only to "this chapter" (i.e. the "Solid Wastes Disposal Law" under Title 17 not Title 19). Oktibbeha county established its garbage disposal system pursuant to section 19-5-17, and, as such, the authority given to the county to assess and collect fees is also governed by statutes under Title 19.
¶ 12. Indeed, Title 19 possesses its own "exemption" provision. Section 19-5-21(5) as applicable when this action arose, does allow counties to adopt an order authorizing residents living in unincorporated areas to elect not to use the county garbage system, provided they file a request with the chancery clerk. That statute reads in pertinent part:
The board of supervisors in any county that has established a garbage and/or rubbish collection and/or disposal system only for residents in unincorporated areas may adopt an order authorizing any single family generator to elect not to use the county garbage and/or rubbish collection and/or disposal system. If the board of supervisors adopts such order, the head of any single family residential generator may elect not to use the county garbage . service by filing with the chancery clerk the form provided for in this subsection....
Miss.Code Ann. § 19-5-21(5)(1995 & Supp. 1999) (emphasis added).
¶ 13. The record absolutely establishes that neither Rogers nor Laudermilk filed the requisite forms requesting that they be exempted from the county's garbage disposal system. Rogers and Laudermilk raise the issue of whether the county had adopted an exemption policy. The record shows that it had not. This point, however, is immaterial in light of the fact just mentioned-neither Rogers nor Laudermilk attempted to achieve exemption status pursuant to Section 19-5-21(5). Further, the exemption is discretionary with the county, not mandatory. Therefore, Rogers and Laudermilk were under a statutory obligation to pay the fees assessed by the county for its garbage disposal system.
¶ 14. The statutory language governing this case is clear, and the facts fall squarely within the purview of the applicable statutes. Oktibbeha County adopted a garbage disposal system pursuant to Section 19-5-17. Rogers and Laudermilk, residents of Oktibbeha County, generated garbage which they themselves disposed, choosing not to utilize the county's system. Neither Rogers nor Laudermilk paid the fees assessed by the county. Therefore, both remained under a legal obligation to pay the garbage disposal fees assessed by the county. Neither paid. The trial court correctly ruled in favor of the county and ordered that both Rogers and Laudermilk pay the garbage disposal fees. The judgment is affirmed.
¶ 15. AFFIRMED.
PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., BANKS, SMITH AND WALLER, JJ., CONCUR. McRAE, J., NOT PARTICIPATING. COBB, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.