Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lamar County, Mississippi v. City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi
Citation: Not availableDocket: 2001-AN-00634-SCT
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; March 21, 2001; Mississippi; State Supreme Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case concerning the annexation of land by the City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, the appellants, consisting of local citizens and officials, appealed a judgment from the Lamar County Chancery Court which allowed Hattiesburg to annex five non-contiguous parcels of land in Lamar County. The trial court, presided over by Judge Thomas Wright Teel, had originally ruled in favor of the City’s petition after the City corrected errors in its legal description of the annexation area and re-adopted its ordinance. The City filed a new complaint for ratification of this ordinance, which included detailed legal descriptions and plans for public services and improvements to the annexed areas. The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancellor's decision, emphasizing the judiciary's limited role in reviewing municipal annexation actions while validating the City’s legislative authority to extend its boundaries. The court noted that the case had seen significant procedural developments, including multiple filings and extensive discovery, following the recusal of the original chancellors. A hearing held by Chancellor Teel on June 16, 2000, resulted in a nine-page order issued on June 23, 2000. Key points from this order include: 1. The City was permitted to amend its pleadings to correct legal descriptions of the Property Purchase Agreement (PPA). 2. Motions to dismiss and bifurcate from various objectors were denied. 3. The City was instructed to republish and repost notice following the filing of its amended petition. 4. Objectors were allowed to amend their pleadings. 5. The trial scheduled for August 2000 was canceled. The City’s motion to amend was based on allegations that, following the adoption of an annexation ordinance on June 22, 1999, a review by the Lamar County engineer uncovered multiple errors in the legal description. Although only one error was initially disclosed by the objectors, the City dismissed its litigation to correct this error, readopted the ordinance, and refilled the matter. Upon refiling, additional undisclosed errors were revealed during discovery. The County Engineer's deposition confirmed two typographical errors but indicated he could locate the territory on the ground. The City sought to amend its ordinance and pleadings to eliminate any ambiguity regarding the description, asserting that no party would suffer prejudice from the amendment. Notably, the court found it troubling that only one of five errors was disclosed to the City, which led to the dismissal of the initial petition and subsequent amendments without addressing all existing errors. On July 7, 2000, certain objectors filed a motion for interlocutory appeal against the chancellor’s approval of the City’s motion to amend legal descriptions of the PPA, pursuant to M.R.A.P. 5. The chancellor granted this motion on August 31, 2000, certifying the issue for appellate review. However, a three-judge panel denied the petition for interlocutory appeal on October 10, 2001. Subsequently, a hearing was held from February 5 to February 20, 2001, where newly retained attorneys for the objectors requested a continuance, which was denied. The chancellor conducted a twelve-day hearing, reviewing testimonies, arguments, evidence, and applicable law, and issued a comprehensive thirty-one-page judgment on March 7, 2001, fully granting Hattiesburg’s annexation petition. Hattiesburg is described as covering 49.7 square miles with a population of approximately 49,233, primarily in Forrest County, with a portion in Lamar County, which has about 38,127 residents across 500 square miles. Hattiesburg has a history of annexations since 1966, particularly along the Highway 98 corridor and Interstate 59, with significant annexations occurring in 1979, 1981, 1985, 1989, and 1998. Controversy arose during Hattiesburg’s annexations, notably during a 1987 petition seeking extensive territory, which prompted residents of Lamar County to pursue the incorporation of Oak Grove, leading to related litigations. The PPA encompasses five non-contiguous parcels, with Parcel “C” being the largest and primarily following the Highway 98 corridor, while Parcel “A” covers the I-59 corridor extending to Hattiesburg's limits. Parcel “D” is the third largest in the proposed annexation area, comprising about 10% of the total PPA and located between parcels annexed in 1979, 1981, and 1989. Parcel “B” accounts for roughly 5% of the PPA, situated south of the 1989 annexation and adjacent to a portion of the 1985 annexation, while Parcel “E” is a small area north of Turtle Creek Mall along West Fourth Street. Most of Parcels “A”, “D”, and “E” remain undeveloped. Parcel “C” has one-third of its space occupied by a planned subdivision with some homes built, another third built-out, and the final third undeveloped. Parcel “B” is primarily fully developed. The PPA has an estimated population of 630, predominantly commercial, with a significant residential presence in a 250-apartment complex just outside the northeastern city limits near I-59. Following a trial, the chancellor issued a sixteen-page judgment approving the annexation, which is now being appealed by objectors on four primary issues: 1) whether the court erred in allowing the city to amend the annexation legal description; 2) whether the court should have dismissed the case due to existing errors in the legal description at trial; 3) whether the court erred in determining the annexation's reasonableness based on evidence; and 4) whether a specific Mississippi statute is constitutional. The chancellor's decisions regarding the legal description amendments and the motion to dismiss are subject to de novo review, rather than the deferential "manifest error/substantial evidence" standard. During the initial annexation proceedings, the Lamar County engineer identified five errors in the legal descriptions, but the objectors only disclosed one to the city, leading to the dismissal of the first petition. When the city filed a second petition with a corrected legal description, it unknowingly included remaining errors, prompting the objectors to seek further dismissal or a continuance based on the newly revealed discrepancies. Objectors argue that significant errors in the legal descriptions pertaining to annexation deprived the chancery court of jurisdiction, citing Miss. Code Ann. 21-1-27, which mandates precise definitions of territory for municipal boundary changes. They contend that accurate descriptions of the proposed annexed territory (PPA) are essential for jurisdiction, referencing the case of In re Confirmation of Alteration of the Boundaries of the City of Horn Lake, 630 So. 2d 10 (Miss. 1993). In Horn Lake, the ordinance correctly described the PPA but contained an error in the overall city boundary description, leading to a successful amendment by the city. The objectors claim that the errors in Hattiesburg’s legal descriptions are more severe than those in Horn Lake, arguing that they are fatal to the case. Furthermore, objectors differentiate the types of errors, asserting that inaccuracies in the PPA description as opposed to the city boundary description affect jurisdiction differently. They reference Dodd v. City of Jackson, 238 Miss. 372, 118 So.2d 319 (1960), which emphasizes mandatory inclusion of improvements and public services in annexation ordinances but ultimately did not void the ordinance despite omissions. Lastly, the objectors argue that the liberal amendment practice allowed under Miss. R. Civ. P. 15 does not apply to annexation cases due to specific exclusions in Miss. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(11). The objectors' assertion regarding the applicability of Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure (Miss. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(11)) is partially incorrect. This rule applies to civil proceedings but is subject to specific statutory procedures for actions like municipal boundary changes, which take precedence if they conflict with the rules. If a statute is silent on procedure, the rules apply. The court referenced a previous case (Horn Lake) indicating that specific requirements for defining annexation boundaries were not strictly necessary. The objectors were not prejudiced by the amended legal descriptions related to the proposed annexation, as a clear map was attached to both the original and amended ordinances. Bennie Sellers, a qualified professional, confirmed that the boundaries could be established in the field using standard surveying methods based on the legal descriptions provided. He asserted that the descriptions were adequate for locating the entire boundary. Lamar County Engineer Don Walker was excluded as a witness due to a discovery violation, but his proffered testimony indicated that the errors in the legal descriptions affected the overall boundary rather than individual parcels, which had been corrected. Expert testimony confirmed that both the parcels and the entire boundary could be accurately located on the ground. Consequently, the objectors' claims regarding errors in the legal descriptions and the chancellor's decisions to allow amendments and not dismiss the case were found to lack merit. The Court's standard of review for annexation proceedings is highly restricted. It can only overturn a chancellor's decision regarding the reasonableness of annexation if the decision is manifestly wrong and not supported by substantial evidence. In cases of conflicting credible evidence, the Court defers to the chancellor's findings, which can only be challenged if proven manifestly incorrect based on the evidence. The Court also specifies that reversals occur only if the chancellor applied incorrect legal standards or if there is a strong conviction of a mistake. The determination of whether a proposed annexation is reasonable involves the application of specific factors established by the Court in previous cases. Initially identified in Dodd v. City of Jackson, these factors have expanded to twelve in later rulings. While these factors serve as indicators of reasonableness, they are not definitive tests. The chancellor must assess all factors collectively to reach a conclusion on the annexation's reasonableness. The concept of "reasonableness" has sparked debate in Mississippi law, with criticisms suggesting that the criteria for determining reasonableness are vague and arbitrary, lacking sufficient guidance for decision-making. Dissenting opinions have argued that the expanded list of indicia has rendered the concept meaningless. Nonetheless, the Court maintains that municipalities must demonstrate that residents of annexed areas will receive tangible benefits in exchange for their taxes to prove the annexation's reasonableness. The test of reasonableness for annexation has developed into twelve indicia, focusing on whether residents in the annexed areas will receive value for their tax contributions. The twelve indicia include: (1) municipality's need for expansion, (2) proximity of the area to the city's growth path, (3) potential health hazards from waste disposal, (4) municipality's financial capability to provide promised services, (5) need for zoning and planning, (6) necessity of municipal services in the annexation area, (7) presence of natural barriers, (8) past performance in service provision, (9) economic impact on current residents, (10) effects on voting strength of minority groups, (11) past enjoyment of benefits by property owners without contributing taxes, and (12) any additional relevant factors. The objectors argue that Hattiesburg should prioritize developing existing vacant land instead of pursuing annexation. They reference expert Michael Bridge's testimony against "leap frog development," where vacant land remains undeveloped, draining city resources due to infrastructure costs. However, the court finds the objectors’ arguments unpersuasive, noting that Bridge's testimony pertains to a different case and is not applicable here. In a previous case, the annexation by Jackson was deemed unreasonable due to population decline and lack of need for expansion, which was viewed as a mere revenue-raising effort. Hattiesburg rebuts objections regarding the reasonableness of its annexation plans, asserting that no specific "magic buildout" figure is necessary. The city references examples from Southaven, Madison, and Ridgeland, where significant vacancy rates were permitted for annexation. The chancellor found Hattiesburg to be experiencing considerable growth, particularly along the U.S. Highway 98 corridor, noting numerous past annexation attempts in the area. Observations from a bus tour highlighted a stark contrast in traffic volume entering Hattiesburg versus the surrounding areas, indicating a thriving local economy driven by businesses relocating to the Highway 98 corridor. The chancellor identified natural boundaries limiting Hattiesburg's expansion, such as the Leaf River and Bowie River, and acknowledged challenges with undeveloped land in South Hattiesburg, including ownership issues and socioeconomic factors. He criticized the uncoordinated growth in the proposed annexation area, citing insufficient infrastructure and building regulations as detrimental to future residents. Additionally, the chancellor emphasized Hattiesburg's need for a tax base to sustain its growth, positioning it as the region's economic engine. Addressing claims that Hattiesburg's existing 40% vacant land negated the need for annexation, the chancellor deemed this evidence unreliable due to its lack of expert support and distinguished Hattiesburg's situation from that of Jackson, concluding that the city's expansion was warranted. Bennie Sellers, the Director of Public Services, provided historical context on Hattiesburg's growth to support the annexation need. Sellers testified that in 1990, the primary development occurred in the Westover-Highway 98 area, with ongoing westward growth since then. This growth necessitated increasing the proposed water tank from 500,000 gallons to one million gallons. Sellers indicated that numerous businesses, including service stations, restaurants, shops, and banks, were established or under construction in the proposed annexation area (PPA), highlighting significant development along Highway 11. Expert testimony from Michael Bridge noted a population increase of over 4,000 from 1990 to 1999, indicating a need for municipal expansion. The excerpt references a relevant annexation case involving Jackson, where annexation was deemed unreasonable due to a lack of need for land. In contrast, Hattiesburg's growth was described as "bursting at the seams" along the Highway 98 corridor. Objectors pointed out that Hattiesburg has over 40% usable vacant land, but the court previously ruled that there is no predetermined amount of vacant land required to justify annexation, citing other cases where annexation was approved despite similar circumstances. The chancellor found the evidence regarding the percentage of usable vacant land to be unreliable. The chancellor's conclusion on Hattiesburg's need for expansion was supported by credible evidence. Objectors conceded that the PPA is within Hattiesburg's growth path but argued that the city must prove it fostered this growth. The chancellor evaluated each parcel individually and determined that Parcel A was clearly in Hattiesburg's growth path, supported by the purchase of 40 acres by the First Baptist Church and consensus among experts regarding Parcel B's growth potential. A church in Parcel B has access to fire and water services from the City. The chancellor determined that Parcel C, the largest and most developed area with significant vacant land, is adjacent to the City and connected by existing roads, showing ongoing development. Both the City's and objectors' experts indicated that Parcel C is on a growth path. Similarly, Parcels D and E are also in the City's growth path, with the primary landowner in Parcel E supporting annexation. The chancellor concluded, based on historical annexations and growth patterns, that these areas are indeed on the City's path of growth. Testimony from Sellers supported the notion that the PPA (proposed annexation area) is on this growth path, highlighting the City’s investments in water system upgrades for anticipated expansion. Expert Mike Bridge noted that residential growth in Hattiesburg is primarily westward, with significant development intensity dropping outside the City’s boundaries due to varying service levels. The chancellor affirmed that it is sufficient for a city to demonstrate that an annexation area is on "a" path of growth, not necessarily the most critical one, and found substantial evidence supporting Hattiesburg's claim of growth in the annexation area. In terms of potential health hazards, Hattiesburg asserted that their evidence was stronger than in previous cases cited by objectors, who did not contest the chancellor's findings. The objectors pointed out that septic systems eventually fail and that part of the PPA receives sewer service from a local association. They claimed that sewer issues were partly due to Hattiesburg's objections to extending services into the area. The chancellor characterized the septic tanks as an "insignificant" factor in determining reasonableness, referencing the Horn Lake case. Hattiesburg's sewage and waste disposal system was found to be superior to Lamar County's, based on testimony from Jim Weston, a Mississippi Department of Health expert. He identified issues in the PPA, including failing septic systems and poorly maintained lagoons, which posed potential health risks due to reliance on groundwater susceptible to septic discharge. Although some problems had been remedied, many had reemerged, and the County lacked formal plans for a sewage system. Hattiesburg collected garbage twice weekly compared to Lamar County's once weekly collection. Weston presented evidence of malfunctioning sewage systems and highlighted risks such as toilets backing up and untreated discharges entering storm drains, raising concerns about disease contamination. The objectors misinterpreted language from a previous case, arguing that septic tanks were "insignificant," but the chancellor concluded there was substantial evidence supporting Hattiesburg's position regarding the reasonableness of the annexation. Regarding financial capability, Hattiesburg asserted its ability to annex, countered by objectors. The chancellor found Hattiesburg had demonstrated financial adequacy for the annexation, supported by testimony from objectors’ witness Joe David Nichols, who confirmed Hattiesburg's financial viability and described its proposed sales tax revenue as conservative. Hattiesburg also presented detailed financial documentation and testimony from its financial manager, Joseph Townsend, affirming that the city could meet annexation costs without issuing bonds, thus substantiating its financial capacity. Hattiesburg's financial manager and an expert witness for the objectors both confirmed the city's financial capability to support the proposed annexation, with the chancellor's conclusions on this matter backed by substantial evidence. Objectors claimed that Lamar County's planning department, with full-time staff and subdivision regulations, could match Hattiesburg’s service provision, citing the Canebrake development as an example of high standards. Hattiesburg disputed this, asserting it could offer superior planning services and presented the Lamar County planning director to demonstrate deficiencies in the county's planning. The chancellor noted Hattiesburg's robust zoning regulations and building codes compared to Lamar County’s minimal zoning tools and lack of building codes, deeming the annexation reasonable based on these factors. Evidence from Alana Abney, the county planner, confirmed Lamar County had not adopted essential codes except for a few specific ordinances and regulations. The chancellor concluded there was a clear need for enhanced zoning and planning in Lamar County, countering the objectors' claims regarding the adequacy of the county’s planning department. Regarding municipal services, objectors argued residents were satisfied with current County services, but Hattiesburg maintained that this point was not substantiated against the chancellor's findings. The chancellor identified the PPA as more urban, noting increased traffic, commercial growth, and future development as indicators of a need for municipal services. Hattiesburg's Chief of Police, Charles Sims, provided testimony that the city could deliver police services effectively within the PPA, contrasting Hattiesburg's resources with the limitations faced by the Lamar County Sheriff's Department. He highlighted safety concerns, including increased fatalities on county roads and the inability to enforce speeding laws effectively. Retired Hattiesburg Fire Chief George Herrington testified about the City’s plan to establish a new fire station staffed by twelve personnel, providing 24-hour coverage with four individuals per shift. Funding would come from the City’s general fund and municipal rebate fund, while an existing station would temporarily serve the area during construction. Lamar County fire coordinator James Smith indicated that the Northeast Lamar fire district currently has two stations, relies on volunteer support, and lacks a ladder truck. The chancellor concluded that the proposed annexation would benefit from city services, supported by substantial evidence. It was acknowledged that both the City and objectors agreed there were no natural barriers affecting the annexation's reasonableness. Objectors contended that Hattiesburg has not adequately provided municipal services to some areas annexed years ago, particularly emphasizing delays in service provision to poorer neighborhoods. The chancellor noted Hattiesburg's positive past performance, citing expansions in sewer services, new fire stations, and police department improvements, despite acknowledging shortcomings in meeting city standards for previously annexed areas. Testimony from local business owner Emmett Wyman highlighted ongoing reliance on Lamar County for water and sewage services despite being within Hattiesburg's limits, illustrating challenges in service connection. Ultimately, while Hattiesburg's past service provision was deemed somewhat lacking, the chancellor considered it reasonable when weighed against the city's progress in other areas. The inquiry into reasonableness does not hinge on any single factor, and overall, the indicium of past performance weighs slightly against the city. The chancellor is tasked with evaluating whether an annexation is reasonable based on several factors that serve as indicators of reasonableness rather than distinct tests. Previous judicial opinions, notably from Justice Sullivan and Justice Pittman, suggest a different methodology for assessing annexation. They propose that a municipality must first demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that it adequately provides municipal services to existing areas before proceeding with annexation. Should this requirement be met in a bifurcated trial, the municipality can then justify the annexation and outline its service commitments to the new area. A timetable for service implementation must be included in the chancellor's judgment, and if the municipality fails to deliver on its promises, the annexation should be revoked. Justice Pittman noted that the legislative framework for annexation may have been underestimated by the courts, which have created a judicial scheme that inadequately addresses the complexities of annexation. This has resulted in a judicial overreach into a legislative matter, leading to a situation where the courts primarily affirm the chancellor’s findings without fully addressing the rights and concerns of individual objectors. The existing judicial indicia of reasonableness focus excessively on the needs of the annexing municipality, neglecting the perspectives of those being annexed. Future considerations of annexation should adhere closely to legislative guidelines to ensure a balanced approach that respects both municipal needs and the rights of objectors. The court's decision in the annexation case reflects a careful balancing of equity and reasonableness, with an emphasis on established indicia of reasonableness rather than a strict procedural remedy. Lamar County's overwhelming vote to remain dry contrasts with Hattiesburg's wet status, raising social concerns regarding alcohol sales in the newly annexed area. The chancellor acknowledged that while community sentiments on alcohol vary, the record supported the findings regarding its social impact, noting that the transition to a wet status in the annexation area is not as significant as a first crossing into a wet jurisdiction. Concerns were also raised about potential tax increases for residents within the proposed annexation area (PPA). The chancellor determined that the subjective nature of cost/benefit analyses made quantification difficult. However, he highlighted that Hattiesburg would offer municipal services, including superior law enforcement and fire protection, which could mitigate some costs. The chancellor noted that while annexation might lead to a loss of $97,000 in tax revenues for Lamar County, the area already contributed a significant portion of the county's tax base without receiving equivalent services. Lastly, the argument regarding the impact of annexation on minority voting strength was dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence from the objectors. The chancellor's conclusions on these matters were deemed supported by substantial and credible evidence throughout the proceedings. Hattiesburg's proposed annexation would result in a slight increase in the white population from 58.2% to 58.4%, while the non-white population would remain nearly constant at 41.8% within the existing city limits and 41.6% in the annexed territory. The white voting age population would increase by 0.1% to 64.4%, while the non-white voting age population would decrease to 35.6%. The chancellor determined that the objectors failed to provide evidence of voting strength dilution and found that the annexation would have minimal impact on minority voting strength, a decision not deemed manifestly wrong. The benefits of proximity to Hattiesburg were also assessed, with the chancellor concluding that the growth in the proposed annexation area (PPA) was largely a result of Hattiesburg's economic expansion. It was noted that residents and businesses outside city limits would benefit from city services without contributing taxes. This conclusion was supported by substantial evidence. Further factors included concerns from local churches, developers, and the rivalry between county and city residents. Objectors claimed that annexation would diminish Oak Grove's community identity. Hattiesburg countered by highlighting that neighborhoods within cities can retain unique identities, citing Jackson’s Belhaven neighborhood as an example. The court acknowledged the importance of community identity and the unifying effect of public schools in Mississippi, particularly regarding the Oak Grove schools. The objections regarding the community’s "sense of place" were debated in terms of their significance against the backdrop of the annexation's reasonableness. The Oak Grove community has historically supported its incorporation efforts and opposed Hattiesburg's annexation attempts. Key court cases include *Incorporation of the City of Oak Grove v. Hattiesburg* (1996) and *Matter of Enlargement of Corporate Limits of City of Hattiesburg* (1991), which reference the community's social and economic impact under specific indicia. Testimonies from local figures highlighted the Oak Grove Schools, consisting of an elementary, middle, and high school, as a vital community unifier, fostering strong community pride. Although the Oak Grove Concerned Citizens were involved in the 1991 case, there was limited mention of the schools, while the 1996 decision acknowledged their importance in the context of Hattiesburg's annexation efforts. The Lamar County School District expressed concerns that the denial of Oak Grove's incorporation could lead to future annexation by Hattiesburg, potentially affecting the school district. However, the court clarified that concerns about annexation should be addressed in future annexation cases rather than the current one. The Oak Grove High School's classification and community events, such as football games, further contribute to local cohesion. The chancellor's approval of Hattiesburg's annexation petition was affirmed, with the exception of a 20-acre area in Lamar County, including Oak Grove. Overall, concerns about the future of the Oak Grove Schools are minimal in the current litigation. Miss. Code Ann. 21-1-59 stipulates that any changes to municipal boundaries affecting areas in a different county are contingent upon obtaining written consent from the relevant school district's board of trustees. This requirement is underscored by case law, specifically Western Line Consol. Sch. Dist. v. Greenville Mun. Sch. Dist., which affirms that annexation does not impact school districts located in different counties without consent. The Lamar County School District has raised concerns regarding the legality of amendments to this statute enacted in 1977 and 1978, citing a lack of federal preclearance as mandated by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The implications of these amendments are further explored in the Dupree litigation, which also examines related statutes Miss. Code Ann. 37-7-103 and 37-7-611. The U.S. Supreme Court recently remanded a case back to the district court to clarify the scope of injunctions against these statutes. Previous cases, including the 1997 Matter of Enlargement and Extension of the Mun. Boundaries of the City of Jackson, have highlighted the potential adverse effects of annexation on existing school district boundaries. In that case, the court reversed an annexation decision, citing motivations centered around tax revenue rather than community needs. The ruling reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny regarding the intersection of municipal annexation and public school district integrity. The Court expressed concerns regarding the impact of annexation on existing schools, referencing its prior decision in Jackson, which also examined similar statutory and case law. In Jackson, the focus was on whether approximately 1,200 students from the Hinds County School District would transition to the Jackson Public School District, without the complication of cross-county student attendance. In contrast, the current case involves Hattiesburg's annexation of the Oak Grove area and its implications for students currently enrolled in the Lamar County School District's Oak Grove schools. The Court highlighted its own extensive discussion on the school issue, significantly more than the parties involved, whose submissions contained minimal references to the Oak Grove community and schools. The chancellor noted Oak Grove's growth and referenced a previous decision that acknowledged residents' desires to maintain their rural lifestyle and community identity. However, he concluded that while the rural identity may apply to Oak Grove, it does not reflect the commercial and urbanizing nature of certain areas involved in the annexation. The chancellor also pointed out that previous decisions effectively preclude any future incorporation of Oak Grove, and there were no current plans for such incorporation presented in the record. The chancellor's findings regarding the annexation's reasonableness are affirmed, as the decision can only be reversed if manifestly wrong and unsupported by substantial evidence. The constitutionality of Miss. Code Ann. 21-1-27, the annexation statute, is challenged by objectors as being vague and providing no clear guidance on the "reasonableness" standard. However, the statute outlines the annexation procedures and does not contain the "reasonableness" test, which is a judicial interpretation. The Court declines to declare the statute unconstitutional, emphasizing that any changes to the "reasonableness" standard should be pursued through the legislature. The objectors' claim of a "taking without due process" lacks merit, as the record shows that the chancellor ensured adequate notice to affected citizens, including multiple postings and newspaper announcements regarding the annexation hearings. The chancellor's actions are deemed reasonable, with the annexation serving to ensure that all citizens contribute fairly to the city's services. The conclusion acknowledges the emotional nature of annexation disputes but reinforces the limited scope of judicial review guiding the Court's decision. The special chancellor's decision to allow the city to amend its annexation area and not dismiss the case was upheld. A 12-day hearing provided substantial evidence for the chancellor's findings on the annexation's reasonableness, culminating in a detailed 31-page opinion and a 16-page final judgment. The constitutionality of Miss. Code Ann. 21-1-27 was confirmed, leading to an affirmation of the trial court's judgment. Dissenting opinions highlighted concerns regarding the judiciary's role in annexation, arguing that such decisions should rest with the legislature, which is better positioned to address community needs. The dissenters criticized the subjective nature of chancellor decisions on annexation and emphasized that annexation issues should be resolved through legislative processes to ensure community representation. The dissenting justices contended that the court's involvement in annexation undermines legislative authority and could lead to ongoing judicial complications.