Enlarging, Extending & Defining the Corporate Limits & Boundaries of Biloxi v. City of Biloxi

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed competing annexation petitions filed by Biloxi and D’Iberville involving substantially the same territory in Harrison County. The Court held that Biloxi lacked standing to assert third-party notice objections and had waived its personal-jurisdiction argument by failing to raise it in the trial court. It affirmed the chancellor’s decision to award each city a reduced annexation area, finding the determination reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings

1. Biloxi lacked standing to assert the notice rights of third-party objectors because Biloxi itself was properly served and had no personal jurisdiction defect.
2. Notice under the annexation statutes concerns personal jurisdiction, not subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. Biloxi waived its objection by failing to raise it in the trial court despite several years of participation and a scheduling order specifically requiring jurisdictional challenges to be filed by a stated deadline.
4. The chancellor did not manifestly err in finding that neither city reasonably could annex the entire proposed area and in awarding Biloxi and D'Iberville reduced, geographically adjacent areas.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Biloxi could challenge for the first time on appeal the adequacy of proof that D'Iberville had satisfied the statutory publication requirement.
2. Whether the publication-notice issue concerned personal jurisdiction or subject-matter jurisdiction.
3. Whether Biloxi had standing to assert the notice rights of third parties.
4. Whether Biloxi waived its jurisdictional objection by failing to raise it in the trial court and by failing to comply with the scheduling order.
5. Whether the chancellor manifestly erred in finding that the competing annexations, as reduced and divided between the cities, were reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Disposition

affirmed