City of Jackson, Mississippi v. Willie B. Jordan

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a judgment awarding Willie B. Jordan damages after the City of Jackson demolished his property without providing the statutorily required notice of the condemnation hearing. The court held that Jordan had standing, that the statutory appeal period did not bar his claim because notice was inadequate, and that sovereign immunity did not shield the city from a constitutional due-process claim. The court also upheld the damages award because the city failed to properly preserve and brief its challenge to the method of calculating damages.

Holdings

1. A deed conveyed by a minor is voidable rather than void, and the grantor may affirm it after reaching majority. Because Jordan's nephew ratified the deed, Jordan had standing to assert his claim.
2. The statutory appeal remedy and ten-day time bar did not apply because the city failed to provide the notice required before the condemnation hearing. Jordan's separate constitutional claim therefore was not jurisdictionally barred.
3. Sovereign immunity for legislative, judicial, or legislative- or judicial-nature administrative action does not shield a political subdivision from a claim alleging violation of an individual's constitutional rights.
4. The damages award was not an abuse of discretion because the city waived its challenge to the method of calculating damages by failing to make a proper contemporaneous objection and failing to support the issue with relevant authority on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jordan lacked standing because his interest in the property derived from a deed executed by his nephew while the nephew was a minor.
2. Whether Jordan's failure to appeal the city's condemnation decision within ten days under Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75 deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction.
3. Whether the city was immune from Jordan's claim based on legislative, judicial, or legislative- or judicial-nature administrative action or inaction.
4. Whether the circuit court erred in calculating and awarding damages.

Disposition

affirmed