Opinion ID: 863123
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the sufficiency of the property description.

Text: ¶4. Prior to trial the trial court denied the Trust's motion to dismiss on the basis that the property description provided by Destin was insufficient. An eminent domain judge is the finder of facts in determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss a petition for eminent domain. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Purcell Co., 606 So. 2d 93, 95-96 (Miss. 1990). The standard of review is whether the trial judge had a sufficient basis for his or her decision. Mayor v. Thomas, 645 So. 2d 940, 941-42 (Miss. 1994). ¶5. On appeal, the Trust points to Miss. Code Ann. § 11-27-5 (Supp. 1999), which requires that an eminent domain petition shall describe in detail the property sought to be condemned, and to Miss. Code Ann. § 19-27-15 (1995), which requires surveyors to perpetuate the original corners [and] . . . the principal corners. The Trust argues that Destin neither provided a metes and bounds description nor described the property in relation to a section corner. ¶6. This Court has held that, where plans and specifications were not attached to the original petition for eminent domain, the petition was sufficient: That is certain which can be made certain by means of the description or references contained in the petition. The petition may refer to a map or plat attached or on the public records, . . . and the description will be sufficient if it can be made out by such references. Rand v. Mississippi State Highway Comm'n, 191 Miss. 230, 199 So. 374, 375 (1941) (quoting 2 Lewis Eminent Domain, pp. 979, 980; 20 C.J. pp. 957, 958). In a case where the tract of land was referred to in different places in the pleadings as consisting of 12.12 acres or 5.928 acres, the Court held that the landowner was never confused as to precisely what land the petitioner sought, and declined to reverse on the grounds that the description was inadequate. Governor's Office of General Servs. v. Carter, 573 So. 2d 736, 739 (Miss. 1990). ¶7. A review of applicable Mississippi law does not unearth, nor does the Trust cite, any precedent which states that, for eminent domain property descriptions to be sufficient, they must be expressed in terms of metes and bounds. The record shows that Destin attached to its petition Exhibit A, which describes the land owned by the Trust; and Exhibit B, which consists of two documents: a scaled drawing which depicts the Trust's land, the proposed right-of-way, and existing Mississippi Power Company utility poles; and a written centerline description of the right-of-way. Exhibit A references the Northeast corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 27 of Township 7 South, Range 5 West. The drawing references the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 7 South, Range 5 West. The drawing also shows that the Destin right-of-way would generally parallel the Mississippi Power Company utility poles. The written description of the right-of-way references the Southwest corner of the Northeast quarter of Section 27, Township 7 South, Range 5 West. Moreover, Destin's surveyor testified at length about the location and description of the land in question. ¶8. The Court finds that the Trust was sufficiently notified of what tract of land was subject to condemnation, especially since the proposed right-of-way parallels the utility poles which existed on the land, and that the trial court had a sufficient basis on which to deny the Trust's motion to dismiss on this issue. Indeed, at oral argument before this Court, the Trust's attorney acknowledged that the right-of-way roughly paralleled the utility poles. There is no credible reason why the Trust would be confused as to what land was being sought by Destin. This assignment of error is without merit.