424 S.W.3d 870
Ark.2012Background
- Rockport residents sought detachment from Rockport and annexation into Malvern under Ark. Code §14-40-2002 due to lack of municipal services.
- Malvern annexed the properties by resolutions, not by ordinance, and the resolutions were not read aloud three times nor published.
- Resolutions annexed several separate properties, not contiguous to each other, and each was separated from Malvern by a Rockport street.
- Three cases were filed and consolidated; a bench trial occurred on August 25, 2011, after which Malvern’s motion to dismiss was granted.
- Rockport appeals asserting the annexations are void for lack of ordinance, non-general/permanent resolutions, failure to read/publish, lack of one area, and non-contiguity; Malvern cross-appeals improper service and seeks dismissal on that basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May annexation be by resolution instead of ordinance? | Rockport asserts annexation required ordinance under §14-40-2002-4. | Malvern contends §14-40-2002 allows annexation by resolution and §14-40-2004 governs hearings, not the method of annexation. | Annexation by resolution permissible; ordinance not required. |
| Are the annexations invalid for not being read/published as general/permanent bylaw? | Rockport argues resolutions were not read three times nor published. | Malvern argues readings/publications apply only to general/permanent bylaws or ordinances, not to non-general resolutions. | Resolutions here are not general or permanent; reading/publication not required. |
| Did the annexed lands compose one area? | Rockport contends multiple non-contiguous parcels cannot form one area. | Malvern contends statute contemplates annexing multiple parcels under one request even if from different owners. | Statute permits this; lands may constitute one area for purposes of annexation. |
| Were the annexed lands contiguous to Malvern? | Rockport argues streets between parcels and Malvern destroy contiguity. | Malvern argues the city street is an easement, not a break in contiguity, so parcels remain contiguous. | Lands are contiguous to Malvern; street ownership does not sever contiguity. |
| Did the circuit court err in dismissing for improper service against certain defendants? | Rockport does not address this issue directly; Malvern cross-appeals improper service. | Malvern argues those defendants were required parties under the Declaratory Judgment Act 16-111-106(a). | Cross-appeal moot as court affirms dismissal on other grounds; improper service issue not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Sims, 238 Ark. 696 (Ark. 1964) (readings/publications not required for non-general resolutions)
- Wood v. El Dorado, 237 Ark. 681 (Ark. 1964) (public property as easement, not fee title; contiguity considerations)
- Voltage Vehicles v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Comm’n, 424 S.W.3d 281 (Ark. 2012) (statutory interpretation using plain meaning)
- Bakalekos v. Furlow, 410 S.W.3d 564 (Ark. 2011) (specific vs general statutes; precedence for statutory interpretation)
- City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 374 S.W.3d 660 (Ark. 2010) (precedent on annexation by resolution between municipalities)