161 So. 3d 1052
Miss.2015Background
- Lowndes County Board of Supervisors voted on Oct. 31, 2011 to abandon a county road crossing (Co-Op Road) after a railroad requested abandonment; notice was published in a small legal ad for three weeks.
- County immediately barricaded the crossing; nearby residents learned later and filed motions for reconsideration on Nov. 30 and an amended joint motion on Feb. 3, 2012.
- At its Feb. 6, 2012 meeting the Board reaffirmed the abandonment but ordered the barricade removed and signs posted that the county no longer maintained the crossing.
- Residents filed a bill of exceptions on Feb. 16, 2012 challenging both the Oct. 31 and Feb. 6 orders as violating statutory abandonment procedure (Miss. Code § 65-7-121).
- The circuit court set aside the Oct. 31 order for inadequate notice and lack of substantial evidence; the Court of Appeals reversed for lack of jurisdiction; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bill of exceptions was timely under Miss. Code § 11-51-75 | McClanahan (residents) argued their Feb.16 bill was timely as to the Feb.6 reconsideration and thus properly before the circuit court | Lowndes County argued appeal was untimely because residents failed to appeal within 10 days of Oct.31 resolution | Appeal as to Feb.6 order was timely; appeal as to Oct.31 order was untimely and beyond circuit court jurisdiction |
| Whether circuit court could review and set aside Oct.31 order | Residents argued Oct.31 notice was inadequate and Board violated §65-7-121, warranting reversal | County argued circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review an untimely challenge to Oct.31 action | Circuit court lacked jurisdiction to consider the Oct.31 order (untimely); it may not reverse that order on the bill of exceptions |
| Whether Board’s reconsideration on Feb.6 brought the matter back into play for appeal | Residents argued the Feb.6 reaffirmation constituted a new decision restarting the 10-day appeal window | County contended reconsideration did not revive reviewable action tied to Oct.31 | The Court held that a Board may reconsider and issue a new decision; the Feb.6 order was appealable within 10 days |
| Scope of circuit court review and ability to amend the bill of exceptions | Residents sought to amend record to include the notice and argued notice adequacy could be considered | County stressed appellate review is limited to the bill of exceptions and record before the Board | Court held bill of exceptions is the appellate record but may be amended with trial judge approval; circuit court may consider relevant aspects of Oct.31 notice only as they bear on legality of the Feb.6 action |
Key Cases Cited
- Trustmark Nat’l Bank v. Johnson, 865 So. 2d 1148 (Miss. 2004) (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
- Hooks v. George Cnty., 748 So. 2d 678 (Miss. 1999) (bill of exceptions is the appellate record)
- Stewart v. City of Pascagoula, 206 So. 2d 325 (Miss. 1968) (limits on supplemental evidence on appeal via bill of exceptions)
- Baymeadows, LLC v. City of Ridgeland, 131 So. 3d 1156 (Miss. 2014) (standard for affirming board action unless arbitrary, capricious, or lacking substantial evidence)
- Newell v. Jones Cnty., 731 So. 2d 580 (Miss. 1999) (ten-day appeal period under §11-51-75 is mandatory and jurisdictional)