Opinion ID: 1828308
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether equitable estoppel should bar southaven's annexation of the paa.

Text: ¶ 10. Equitable estoppel is a doctrine by which a person may be precluded by his act or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right he otherwise would have. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 373 (6th ed. abr. 1991). A party asserting equitable estoppel must prove a(1) belief and reliance on some representation; (2) change of position as a result of the representation; and (3) detriment or prejudice caused by the change of position. Mound Bayou School Dist. v. Cleveland School Dist., 817 So.2d 578, 583 (Miss.2002); Covington County v. Page, 456 So.2d 739, 741 (Miss.1984).
¶ 11. Southaven contends that neither equitable nor judicial estoppel apply because, where the act at issue is a discretionary one instead of a ministerial one, one city administration cannot bind succeeding city administrations. Biloxi Firefighters Assoc. v. City of Biloxi, 810 So.2d 589, 593 (Miss.2002) (citing American Oil Co. v. Marion Co., 187 Miss. 148, 192 So. 296, 299 (1939); Tullos v. Town of Magee, 181 Miss. 288, 179 So. 557, 558 (1938); Edwards Hotel & City R. Co. v. City of Jackson, 96 Miss. 547, 51 So. 802, 805 (1910)). [2] ¶ 12. We have never determined whether the power to annex is discretionary or ministerial, but the statute conferring the power to annex uses permissive language, not mandatory: When any municipality shall desire to enlarge or contract the boundaries thereof by adding thereto adjacent unincorporated territory...., and, In the event the municipality desires to enlarge such boundaries.... Miss.Code Ann. § 21-1-27 (Rev.2001) (emphasis added). The use of this permissive language leads to the conclusion that the power to annex is a discretionary act, not a mandatory act. Therefore, Biloxi Firefighters and the other cases would apply to an agreement whereby a city administration agrees not to annex a certain parcel of land, and that agreement would not be binding on successive administrations. ¶ 13. On February 8, 2000, the landowners wrote a letter to the DeSoto County Planning Commissioner in which they stated that they intend[ed] to honor the current non-aggression agreement between Southaven and Horn Lake signed in 1998. We find that this letter is without significance because the non-aggression agreement was not valid after Southaven's city elections in 2001.
¶ 14. Horn Lake states that equitable estoppel is not limited by the precedent set out above. Yet at least one state has found that equitable estoppel does not apply where a governmental entity claims sovereign immunity, see, e.g., Indiana Dep't of Envtl. Mgm't v. Conard, 614 N.E.2d 916, 921 (Ind.1993), except where there is clear evidence that [the government's] agents made representations upon which the party asserting estoppel relied. West Publ'g Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Revenue, 524 N.E.2d 1329, 1333 (Ind. Tax Ct.1988). However, the party claiming equitable estoppel against a governmental entity must show that estoppel is not inconsistent with the public interest, and this interest must be weighed and balanced against the equities of the circumstances. Muncie Indus. Revolving Loan Fund Bd. v. Indiana Const. Corp., 583 N.E.2d 769 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). ¶ 15. The public interest for Southaven to annex the PAA is without question. Southaven a growing by leaps and bounds, and it needs more land in an area where land is at a premium. The cities of Southaven, Horn Lake and Olive Branch are all jockeying for more land where undeveloped land is increasingly scarce. Therefore, Horn Lake cannot show that estoppel is not inconsistent with the public interest. ¶ 16. Horn Lake claims that it detrimentally relied upon the agreement because, believing that the PAA would eventually be annexed, it intentionally chose not to seek to annex the PAA when it had the opportunity to do so. We find this contention to be without merit because Horn Lake, which seeks equity, did not take affirmative steps to protect its rights under the Agreement. Horn Lake had a window of opportunity to annex the PAA and it did not act. Weighing the equities, we find that Horn Lake was harmed not by Southaven, but by its own negligence. This claim is without merit.