Opinion ID: 1828308
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Impact Upon Residents or Owners

Text: ¶ 54. The chancellor found that no one lived in the PAA, and the only owner had requested annexation by Southaven. A landowner's right to use his land as he sees fit is cherished by the Court. Hall v. Wood, 443 So.2d 834, 838 (Miss.1983). See also Andrews v. Lake Serene Property Owners Assoc., 434 So.2d 1328, 1331, 1333 (Miss.1983). The landowner's use and enjoyment of his property are limited only by the legitimacy of the purpose for which it is used. Homes, Inc. v. Anderson, 235 So.2d 680, 683 (Miss. 1970). For these rights to be meaningful, each property owner's use and enjoyment of his property must be shielded from unreasonable interference by others these `others' ranging from the faceless sovereign to one's next door neighbor. Hall, 443 So.2d at 838. ¶ 55. These principles apply to the case at bar. The landowners wished to be annexed by Southaven because the greater part of the tract of land had already been annexed by Southaven, and they did not want the tract to be divided by two governmental entities. These wishes should be followed unless an objector can show that the landowners' wishes are not legitimate. Annexation is certainly a legitimate purpose. ¶ 56. We find that the chancellor's finding that this factor weighed in favor of Southaven was not manifestly wrong and that the finding was supported by substantial and credible evidence.