Carolyn McAdams v. Sheriel F. Perkins
2016 Miss. LEXIS 506
| Miss. | 2016Background
- Greenwood held a mayoral election; incumbent Carolyn McAdams won; Sheriel Perkins filed an election contest naming McAdams (individually) as the defendant.
- McAdams retained Butler Snow LLP to defend the contest; the Greenwood City Council later passed a resolution retaining Butler Snow to "represent the City’s interest" in upholding the election and actions of election officials.
- The City attorney requested an Attorney General opinion about (1) reimbursing the mayor’s fees and (2) whether the city could retain counsel to represent municipal interests; the AG said the city could retain counsel under Miss. Code §§ 25-1-47 and 21-17-5 but could not reimburse the mayor’s personal fees.
- Perkins filed a bill of exceptions in circuit court challenging the council resolution; the circuit court reversed, holding the council exceeded its authority under § 25-1-47, the resolution amounted to an unconstitutional donation of public funds, and the city had no legitimate interest in the contest.
- McAdams (as mayor) appealed. The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo but applied limited review to the municipal decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Perkins) | Defendant's Argument (McAdams/City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 25-1-47 authorizes a municipality to employ counsel to defend claims challenging municipal officers’ official actions when officers are not named as defendants | § 25-1-47 applies only when officers are actually sued; election contest names only the successful candidate, so statute does not authorize hiring counsel here | § 25-1-47’s use of "claim" is broad and permits the municipality to hire counsel to defend claims arising from officers’ official actions even if officers are not named | The statute permits hiring counsel to defend claims challenging official actions regardless of whether officers are named |
| Whether § 21-17-5 (Home Rule) authorizes the governing authority to retain counsel to protect municipal interests in an election contest | Home Rule does not override limits on public expenditures or permit using public funds to protect a private defendant | § 21-17-5 grants municipal governing authorities discretion over municipal affairs and finances; together with § 25-1-47 it authorizes retention of counsel to protect city interests | § 21-17-5, read with § 25-1-47, authorized the council to retain counsel for the city’s interests |
| Whether the council’s retention of the same firm retained by the mayor was an unconstitutional donation of public funds to a private individual | Hiring the same firm functioned as a backdoor payment of the mayor’s private legal fees—an unconstitutional donation | The resolution expressly retained counsel for the City’s interests; it did not authorize payment of the mayor’s personal fees, and overlapping representation does not automatically convert the act into a donation | Court rejected the donation argument because the resolution authorized representation of the City, not direct payment of the mayor’s private fees |
| Whether the mayor had authority to appeal on behalf of the City without explicit council approval | The mayor lacked authority to pursue the appeal absent an affirmative council authorization; appeal should be dismissed | The mayor has executive power and superintending control; no statute or record shows the council prohibited the appeal, so the mayor could pursue it | Court denied dismissal and held the mayor could appeal in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Crowe, 303 So.2d 474 (Miss. 1974) (only the successful party is the proper defendant in an election contest)
- Madison County v. Hopkins, 857 So.2d 43 (Miss. 2003) (§ 25-1-47 permits but does not require a political subdivision to provide legal counsel; discretion resides with local officials)
- City of Ocean Springs v. Homebuilders Ass’n of Miss., Inc., 932 So.2d 44 (Miss. 2006) (discussing Home Rule powers under § 21-17-5)
- Nichols v. Patterson, 678 So.2d 673 (Miss. 1996) (municipal donations of public funds are unlawful)
- Gaddy v. Bucklew, 580 So.2d 1180 (Miss. 1990) (officials must have municipal authorization to prosecute appeals on behalf of the governing body)