Opinion ID: 1564070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the Chancellor Committed Manifest Error in Allowing Jackson to Annex Only Four Square Miles Instead of the Entire PAA.

Text: ¶ 75. This Court has stated that we will not reverse the findings of a chancellor unless the chancellor applies an incorrect legal standard, is manifestly wrong, or the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Prestridge v. City of Petal, 841 So.2d 1048, 1051 (Miss. 2003). Even where the credible evidence is conflicting, this Court will not reverse unless the chancellor's findings are manifestly wrong. In re Enlargement & Extension of the Mun. Boundaries of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 495 (Miss.1995). Furthermore, [a]nnexation is a legislative affair. The judicial function is limited to the question of whether the annexation is reasonable. In re Enlargement & Extension of the Mun. Boundaries of Biloxi v. City of Biloxi ( Biloxi ), 744 So.2d 270, 277 (Miss.1999). This Court has also ruled [t]he only power vested in the court is in the determination of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of an enlargement and whether it should be reduced. In re Extension & Enlargement of the Boundaries of Laurel, 863 So.2d 968, 972 (Miss.2004) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 21-1-33). ¶ 76. In his opinion and order, the chancellor set forth and evaluated the twelve factors that this Court has enumerated for determining the reasonableness of annexation: (1) the municipality's need for expansion; (2) whether the area sought to be annexed is reasonably within a path of growth of the city; (3) the potential health hazards from sewage and waste disposal in the annexed areas; (4) the municipality's financial ability to make the improvements and furnish municipal services promised; (5) the need for zoning and overall planning in the area; (6) the need for municipal services in the area sought to be annexed; (7) whether there are natural barriers between the city and the proposed annexation area; (8) the past performance and time element involved in the city's provision of services to its present residents; (9) the impact (economic or otherwise) of the annexation upon those who live in or own property in the area proposed for annexation; (10) the impact of the annexation upon the voting strength of protected minority groups; (11) whether the property owners and other inhabitants of the areas sought to be annexed have in the past, and for the forseeable future unless annexed will, because of their reasonable proximity to the corporate limits of the municipality, enjoy the (economic and social) benefits of proximity to the municipality without paying their fair share of the taxes; and (12) any other factors that may suggest reasonableness vel non. In re Extension of the Boundaries of Winona v. City of Winona ( Winona ), 879 So.2d 966, 972 (Miss.2004). The twelve indicia are `not separate and distinct tests in and of themselves ... [and] the chancellor must consider all [twelve] of these factors and determine whether under the totality of the circumstances the annexation is reasonable.' Id. at 972-73 (quoting Biloxi, 744 So.2d at 276).