Opinion ID: 1828308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Annexation is a Discretionary Act or a Ministerial Act

Text: ¶ 11. Southaven contends that neither equitable nor judicial estoppel apply because, where the act at issue is a discretionary one instead of a ministerial one, one city administration cannot bind succeeding city administrations. Biloxi Firefighters Assoc. v. City of Biloxi, 810 So.2d 589, 593 (Miss.2002) (citing American Oil Co. v. Marion Co., 187 Miss. 148, 192 So. 296, 299 (1939); Tullos v. Town of Magee, 181 Miss. 288, 179 So. 557, 558 (1938); Edwards Hotel & City R. Co. v. City of Jackson, 96 Miss. 547, 51 So. 802, 805 (1910)). [2] ¶ 12. We have never determined whether the power to annex is discretionary or ministerial, but the statute conferring the power to annex uses permissive language, not mandatory: When any municipality shall desire to enlarge or contract the boundaries thereof by adding thereto adjacent unincorporated territory...., and, In the event the municipality desires to enlarge such boundaries.... Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-27 (Rev.2001) (emphasis added). The use of this permissive language leads to the conclusion that the power to annex is a discretionary act, not a mandatory act. Therefore, Biloxi Firefighters and the other cases would apply to an agreement whereby a city administration agrees not to annex a certain parcel of land, and that agreement would not be binding on successive administrations. ¶ 13. On February 8, 2000, the landowners wrote a letter to the DeSoto County Planning Commissioner in which they stated that they intend[ed] to honor the current non-aggression agreement between Southaven and Horn Lake signed in 1998. We find that this letter is without significance because the non-aggression agreement was not valid after Southaven's city elections in 2001.