City of Rockport v. City of Malvern
2010 Ark. 449
| Ark. | 2010Background
- Rockport appeals a circuit court ruling that Malvern substantially complied with 14-40-2002(b)(2)(B)(iii) on providing sewer services to the Wright-Welch property.
- Wright-Welch sought annexation from Rockport to Malvern in 2001 and requested sewer and other services as a condition of annexation.
- Malvern adopted Resolution No. 09-01 accepting the Wright-Welch property and committing to provide requested services.
- Rockport filed a declaratory judgment in 2008 arguing Malvern failed to provide or take substantial steps to provide services within the statutory 12-month period.
- A bench trial in August 2009 produced findings that a sewer main existed near the property, steps were taken to provide and accept services, and the landowners took steps to access and plan for connection.
- The court affirmed the annexation’s substantial compliance; Rockport appeals, including a recusal issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sewer services were provided, accepted, and in place. | Rockport: no sewer line on property; no acceptance or connection. | Malvern: line near property; landowners must accept and connect when ready. | Substantial compliance; services provided, accepted, and in place. |
| Whether there was substantial compliance with 14-40-2002(b)(2)(B)(iii). | Strict interpretation; void annexation if no timely provision or steps. | Legislative intent to assist landowners; substantial steps suffice. | Yes, substantial compliance supported by evidence of steps and proximity of sewer line. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Rockport's motion to recuse. | Judge had Malvern ties and represented interests adverse to Rockport; appearance of impropriety. | No actual bias; recusal discretionary and not abused. | No abuse of discretion; recusal not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Maumelle v. Jeffrey Sand Co., 353 Ark. 686 (2003) (ambiguous statute interpreted with purpose and history in mind)
- Searcy v. Davenport, 352 Ark. 307 (2003) (presumption of judicial impartiality; bias must be shown for recusal)
- Caperton v. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (Due Process may require recusal under extreme bias risk)
- Huffman v. Ark. Jud. Discipline & Disability Comm’n, 344 Ark. 274 (2001) (appearance of impropriety may require recusal in economic interest cases)
- Rockport v. Malvern (Rockport I), 356 Ark. 393 (2004) (annexation litigation affirming prior ruling; relevance to services dispute)