City of Rockport v. City of Malvern

155 S.W.3d 9, 356 Ark. 393 (2004) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · March 11, 2004 · No. No. 03-855

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed approval of annexations transferring certain properties from Rockport to Malvern under Act 779 of 1999. The court held that Rockport was bound by the parties’ stipulation of facts and had not demonstrated that it provided or would provide requested municipal services, particularly sanitary sewer service, within a reasonable time.

Holdings

  1. The circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Rockport, through its former counsel and with the assent of its mayor and council members, entered into a binding stipulation of facts.
  2. Sewer service is a necessary municipal service within Act 779 and is manifestly necessary to maximize the use and value of property.
  3. Act 779 requires the municipality in which the property is located to commit to taking substantial steps toward making the requested services available and to continue taking steps demonstrating a consistent commitment to provide the services within a reasonable time; a bare or indefinite commitment is insufficient.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the circuit court clearly erred in finding that the parties entered into a binding stipulation of facts.
  2. Whether the landowners' properties were eligible for detachment from Rockport and annexation into Malvern under Arkansas Code Annotated sections 14-40-2001 through 14-40-2005.
  3. Whether Act 779 of 1999 requires a municipality to actually provide requested services or merely make them available.
  4. Whether Rockport demonstrated compliance with Act 779 by committing to take substantial steps toward providing the requested services.
  5. Whether sewer service constituted a necessary municipal service under Act 779.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (6)

  • Haney v. Holt, 179 Ark. 403, 16 S.W.2d 463 (1929)(followed in describing the standard proposed by the appellees but not adopted as the controlling standard for validity of the stipulation)
  • Lee v. Daniel, 350 Ark. 466, 91 S.W.3d 464 (2002)(followed)
  • Pyle v. Sayers, 344 Ark. 354, 39 S.W.3d 774 (2001)(followed)
  • Myrick v. Myrick, 339 Ark. 1, 2 S.W.3d 60 (1999)(followed)
  • McCombs v. McCombs, 227 Ark. 1, 295 S.W.2d 774 (1956)(distinguished)
  • City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 353 Ark. 686, 120 S.W.3d 55 (2003)(distinguished)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…