Opinion ID: 1727552
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether a less deferential standard of review should be applied to a chancellor's findings in an annexation case.

Text: ¶ 45. The COA includes as part of its argument that the standard of review should be changed. It contends that the Chancellor's decision in annexation cases sometimes amounts to little more than a rubber stamp of a city's decision to annex, and that when a Chancellor fails to consider one or more of the indicia, we should be less deferential to the Chancellor's findings on appeal. ¶ 46. In support of this argument, the COA quotes from Justice Sullivan's dissent describing the framework with which a Chancellor makes his decision regarding annexation in In re Boundaries of City of Vicksburg, 560 So.2d 713, 716-17 (Miss. 1990): What will be the yardstick: No one knows. It is not some mystical legal formula discoverable only by judges, steeped in the mysteries of law. It is nothing more than what the chancellor, on a given day, says it is. Reasonable is now determined by the length of the chancellor's nose, or foot, if you prefer. Then, through the magic of our manifest error rule we must affirm the finding of the chancellor. All that is required is that five noses of ours be the same length as the chancellor's. As the trial court is presumed correct, we find infrequently that five noses are of different lengths ... What must protestors show to avoid being annexed? Who knows? ... All hope the chancellor's lunch agreed with him. See also In re the Enlargement of the Corporate Limits and Boundaries of the City of Gulfport, 627 So.2d 292, 295 (Miss. 1993) (Smith, J., dissenting) (the test has been expanded so far that now it is absolutely meaningless.) ¶ 47. The COA also points to our ruling in the de-annexation case of In re Exclusion of Certain Territory from the City of Jackson, 698 So.2d 490 (Miss.1997), wherein we held that de-annexation would be allowed where a municipality has failed to extend municipal services within a reasonable period of time. The COA concludes that we have a tendency toward more rigorous review of a Chancellor's decision to allow ambitious territorial expansions where the municipality promises to extend municipal services with only vague references to economic feasibility. The COA asks that we take a less deferential posture towards Chancellors than the manifest error standard to provide annexation objectors with some real ability to withstand annexation, as the balance is often against those seeking to fight city hall ... without any weapons. See In re Extension of the Boundaries of the City of Columbus, 644 So.2d 1168, 1185 (Miss.1994) (Pittman, J., specially concurring). ¶ 48. Although this argument has some merit, we conclude that the existing framework for evaluating the reasonableness of annexation is extensive and capable of providing for a fair determination, assuming the Chancellor thoughtfully considers all of the indicia, and we carefully monitor those findings to assure that they are supported by substantial, credible evidence. Therefore, we decline the opportunity to change the burden of proof or the standards of review.