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

Heading: Whether the Trial Court Had Jurisdiction To Consider the Petition For Incorporation.

Text: ¶ 11. This Court reviews the chancellor's findings for manifest error as to whether a petition for incorporation is legally sufficient. City of Pascagoula v. Scheffler, 487 So.2d 196, 199 (Miss.1986). In explaining the standard of review, this Court has stated that it cannot overturn the decree of a chancellor unless it finds with reasonable certainty that the decree is manifestly wrong on a question of law or interpretation of facts pertaining to legal questions. Id. at 200. As to questions of law, this Court applies a de novo review. In re Extension & Enlarging of the Boundaries of Laurel, 863 So.2d 968, 971 (Miss.2004). ¶ 12. Under Section 21-1-13, [w]henever the inhabitants of any unincorporated territory shall desire to incorporate... they shall prepare a petition and file same in the chancery court of the county in which such territory is located. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-13 (Rev.2007). The petition shall contain the following: (1) it shall describe accurately the metes and bounds of the territory proposed to be incorporated and there shall be attached to such petition a map or plat of the boundaries of the proposed municipality; (2) it shall set forth the corporate name which is desired; (3) it shall be signed by at least two-thirds of the qualified electors residing in the territory proposed to be incorporated; (4) it shall set forth the inhabitants of such territory; (5) it shall set forth the assessed valuation of the real property in such territory according to the latest available assessments thereof; (6) it shall state the aims of the petitioners in seeking said incorporation, and shall set forth the municipal and public services which said municipal corporation proposes to render and the reasons why the public convenience and necessity would be served by the creation of such municipal corporation; (7) it shall contain a statement of the names of the persons the petitioners desire appointed as officers of such municipality; and (8) it shall be sworn to by one or more of the petitioners. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-13(1)-(8) (Rev. 2007). Furthermore, the petitioners for incorporation have the burden of proving the sufficiency of [the] petition. Scheffler, 487 So.2d at 198. ¶ 13. Jackson essentially presents three arguments in refuting the trial court's jurisdiction to hear the incorporation. First, Jackson argues that a petition for incorporation can never be amended after it has been filed. Second, Jackson argues that a petition with a technical error (i.e., a missing page) is fatal under Section 21-1-13 of the Mississippi Code. Last, Jackson argues that a petitioner may not utilize Rule 21 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure to add a party defendant to a petition for incorporation. This Court addresses each argument in turn. ¶ 14. Jackson argues that the requirements of Section 21-1-13 are jurisdictional and must be met at the time the petition is filed. Jackson further argues that a petition for incorporation cannot be amended once it has been filed. Jackson supports its argument with the statutory language of Section 21-1-13 that a petitioner shall prepare a petition and file same and the petition shall contain the designated information. See Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-13 (Rev.2007). Jackson relies on a pre-rule case, Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 250 Miss. 717, 168 So.2d 40 (1964), to support its contention that a petition must meet all the elements of Section 21-1-13 when filed. ¶ 15. In Bridges, petitioners sought incorporation of an area west of the City of Biloxi and filed a petition for incorporation. Id. at 40. The petitioners then filed an amended petition with additional signatures. Id. On appeal, this Court stated `[t]he petition must recite the existence of the conditions specified by statute to authorize incorporation, and those required by statute to be included in the petition for incorporation.' Id. at 41 (quoting McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, § 3.26 (3d ed.1949)). This Court held that once the petition is filed, amendments thereafter cannot be made to include the names of additional petitioners. Id. The Court refused to count the signatures of the amended petition and evaluated the original petition to determine if it contained the necessary signatures. Id. ¶ 16. Conversely, BI argues that a petition for incorporation can be amended, according to In re Inclusion into Ridgeland; Schmidt v. City of Jackson ( Ridgeland ), 494 So.2d 348, 354 (Miss.1986). Ridgeland involved petitioners who sought inclusion into the City of Ridgeland. Ridgeland, 494 So.2d at 349. The City of Jackson resisted the inclusion and sought dismissal on numerous jurisdictional and procedural groundsshort of an adjudication on the merits. Id. The chancellor dismissed the complaint without prejudice, finding that two-thirds of the qualified electors had failed to sign the petition. Id. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, and in dictum, stated: [W]e find that there were several deficiencies found in the complaint which border upon deserving of the label hypertechnical. [sic] Our disposition of the matter today does not require that we address and decide these points ... [however] all might benefit if we make clear that all procedural aspects of post-January 1, 1986, annexation prodeeding [sic] are subject to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure except in the case of clear conflict between those rules and some statutory rule.... At the very worst, the many technical deficiencies found in the complaint are amendable in accordance with Rule 15(a), Miss. R. Civ. P. ... we should be slow to allow insubstantial niceties to interfere with the pursuit of justice. Id. at 354 (emphasis added). ¶ 17. This Court notes that Ridgeland is a post-rule case in which we aptly directed future litigants to consult the Rules of Civil Procedure in addition to any applicable statutes. Furthermore, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 81 provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to all civil proceedings but are subject to limited applicability in the following actions which are generally governed by statutory procedures.... (11) creation of and change in boundaries of municipalities[.] Miss. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(11) (emphasis added). Rule 81 further provides that [s]tatutory procedures specifically provided for each of the above proceedings shall remain in effect and shall control to the extent they may be in conflict with these rules; otherwise these rules apply.  Id. (emphasis added). ¶ 18. While Ridgeland does provide that all procedural aspects of annexation [proceedings] are subject to the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure[,] Ridgeland, 494 So.2d at 354, we are careful to note that there is `a fundamental difference of some magnitude' between incorporation of an unincorporated area on the one hand and the extension of corporate boundaries on the other. Lowe v. City of Jackson, 336 So.2d 490, 492 (Miss.1976). Namely, the Mississippi Legislature enacted § 21-1-27 granting unto municipalities the power of annexation, [and] the lawmakers specifically legislated so as to permit such annexation of land without any requirement that the inhabitants of the subject area give prior consent or in any way express their approval. Id. at 491 (emphasis added). The authority to initiate such proceedings rests with the governing authorities of such municipality. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-27 (Rev.2007). ¶ 19. As for incorporation, the Mississippi Legislature has provided that the  inhabitants of any unincorporated territory... shall prepare a petition and file same in the chancery court. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-13 (Rev.2007) (emphasis added). Such an action for incorporation must be initiated by the signatures of individual citizens living in the affected area. See id. Moreover, the privilege of incorporating a municipality can be granted only by the Legislature, and, of course, the Legislature may put such restrictions on that privilege as it thinks proper. City of Jackson v. Boling, 241 So.2d 359, 362 (Miss.1970). ¶ 20. Because an incorporation is initiated by individual citizens rather than by a governing body, we do not find that all defects in a petition for incorporation are amendable pursuant to Rule 15. In fact, this Court has held otherwise. We have previously held that the two-thirds-signature element is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement, and a petition for incorporation cannot be amended to include additional signatures. [6] Ridgeland, 494 So.2d at 354; Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 250 Miss. 717, 168 So.2d 40, 40 (1964). Likewise, in looking at the plain language of Section 21-1-13, the Legislature has set forth a number of requirements that must be included in the petition, which is signed by the individual inhabitants of the area. ¶ 21. However, we agree that BI's failure to include page three when filed was a clerical error, not a failure to comply with the specific requirements of Section 21-1-13. The record shows that each petition included page three when it was circulated for signatures. [7] The record also shows that a copy shop inadvertently failed to copy and include page three when the petitions were being copied and assembled for filing. Therefore, the qualified electors, who signed the 2002 and 2003 Petitions, were notified of the information required by Section 21-1-13. [8] See also Boling, 241 So.2d at 362 (holding that the petition for incorporation which is filed in the chancery court must be identical to the petition which is circulated and signed by two-thirds of the qualified electors). ¶ 22. We find that BI's failure to include page three in some of the filed petitions was a clerical or technical error amendable under Rule 15 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. [9] See Ridgeland, 494 So.2d at 354. We do not find any conflict between Section 21-1-13 and Rule 15 which would prevent the application of Rule 15 to rectify such a clerical error. ¶ 23. Jackson further argues that BI's petition was jurisdictionally fatal pursuant to Section 21-1-15 of the Mississippi Code because it omitted the Town of Raymond and the City of Clinton as defendants. Section 21-1-15 provides: [N]otice shall be given to all persons interested in, affected by, or having objections to the proposed incorporation.... However, if any of the territory proposed to be incorporated is located within three miles of the boundaries of an existing municipality, then such existing municipality shall be made a party defendant to such petition. Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-15 (Rev.2007) (emphasis added). ¶ 24. Conversely, BI argues that it properly added the Town of Raymond and the City of Clinton as defendants pursuant to Rule 21 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 21 provides that [p]arties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. Miss. R. Civ. P. 21. ¶ 25. Section 21-1-15 is silent as to whether parties may be added after a petition for incorporation has been filed. This Court does not find any conflict between Section 21-1-15 and Rule 21 that would prohibit the use of Rule 21 for the purpose of adding defendant municipalities to a petition for incorporation. The important inquiry is whether the Town of Raymond and the City of Clinton received proper notice. After BI filed the amended and second amended petitions, Raymond and Clinton timely received service of process. [10] Additionally, neither municipality objected to the proposed incorporation. We find BI timely notified and added Raymond and Clinton as party defendants in compliance with Section 21-1-15 of the Mississippi Code. We agree that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the merits of incorporation, as the petitioners complied with Section 21-1-13 and Section 21-1-15.