Opinion ID: 1694332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the Chancery Court mischaracterized the annexation at issue

Text: ¶ 41. The appellant charges the Chancery Court mischaracterized the annexation at issue by including in his opinion: This case presents a joint request for annexation. One by the City of Laurel which seeks annexation of 4/10 of a mile of the right-of-way of Mississippi Highway 15 South of Laurel. And the other by property owner Malcolm Carmichael which seeks annexation of his property once the City's annexation is able to extend the City boundaries so it touches his property. ¶ 42. There is no evidence the Chancery Court failed to follow this Court's mandate and treat the annexation as one tract. It is obvious that the ultimate decision of the Chancellor did not turn on the language quoted by the appellants, as it is clear the Chancellor considered the twelve reasonableness factors as required by the Court in Chesney, as addressed in our analysis of Issue I. ¶ 43. Courts throughout this land have been troubled by the adjacency issue about which this Court made a clear pronouncement in Chesney. Other courts refer to this type of annexation as shoestring, balloon on a stick, corridor or long lasso annexation, which rely solely on a highway right-of-way or a narrow corridor to connect the municipality to an otherwise noncontiguous area in order to capture a prize parcel. Town of Baraboo v. Village of West Baraboo, 283 Wis.2d 479, 699 N.W.2d 610 (2005). See also City of Rapid City v. Anderson, 612 N.W.2d 289 (S.D. 2000); Hughes v. Town of Oak Island, 158 N.C.App. 175, 580 S.E.2d 704 (N.C.App. 2003). ¶ 44. This Court has wisely determined that no single factor should be used to defeat or sustain annexations; but has sufficiently developed a body of law for chancellors to follow to determine reasonableness vel non. Single issue concerns such as balloon on a stick or corridor annexations are subsumed into the overall broader analysis of the totality of the circumstances, and can be considered within the twelve factor framework. ¶ 45. Appellants ask this Court to parse the Chancellor's words, when the record is clear that the Chancellor did treat the PAA as one tract of land for annexation consideration. Appellants concede in their brief the purported error is probably not reversible error. The Court agrees with the appellant and finds no reversible error as to Issue II.