Pemberton Properties, Ltd. v. Mayor & Board of Aldermen of Pearl, 224 So. 3d 531

On June 27, 2013 the City of Pearl’s Mayor and Board of Aldermen voted to adopt a rental-housing ordinance (mayor signed the ordinance that day). The ordinance stated it would take effect 30 days after publication; publication occurred on September 17, 2014.
Property owners claim they served a Notice of Appeal and Intent to File Bill of Exceptions on the City Clerk on September 26, 2014, and presented a Bill of Exceptions on November 14, 2014, seeking to appeal the ordinance adoption.
The owners sued for a writ of mandamus after the City failed to transmit their bill of exceptions to the circuit clerk, alleging the City’s refusal prevented an appeal.
The City moved to dismiss, arguing the ten-day statutory appeal period under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75 runs from the adjournment date when the ordinance was adopted (June 27, 2013), so the bill was untimely and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
The circuit court dismissed the mandamus complaint as the bill had not been timely presented; the owners appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the 10-day appeal period under § 11-51-75 begin for municipal ordinances?	The 10-day period runs from the ordinance’s effective date (when it becomes final/appealable).	The 10-day period runs from the adjournment date when the municipal authority rendered and completed its decision (date of adoption).	Held: Period begins on the date the municipal authority completed and rendered the decision (date of adoption).
May a circuit court dismiss a mandamus petition ordering a municipality to sign/transmit a bill of exceptions if the bill was presented outside the statutory appeal period?	Plaintiffs sought mandamus to force filing despite timing dispute.	City argued mandamus cannot be used to revive an untimely appeal; court lacks jurisdiction if appeal time expired.	Held: Circuit court may dismiss a mandamus complaint when the bill was not timely presented and the circuit court would therefore lack jurisdiction.
Are plaintiffs’ filings sanctionable as frivolous?	Plaintiffs contended appeal presented a debatable legal question.	City requested sanctions for frivolous appeal.	Held: Appeal not frivolous; sanctions denied.

Garrard v. City of Ocean Springs, 672 So. 2d 736 (Miss. 1996) (§ 11-51-75 permits appeal of municipal acts that finally dispose of issues)
J.H. Parker Constr. Co. v. Bd. of Aldermen of the City of Natchez, 721 So. 2d 671 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (ten-day appeal period does not run until municipal decision is final and contingencies are removed)
City of Oxford v. Inman, 405 So. 2d 111 (Miss. 1981) (ten-day period tied to the date the written ordinance was signed and adopted)
Hathorn v. Morgan, 65 So. 643 (Miss. 1914) (mandamus to compel mayor to sign/transmit bill of exceptions may be denied when bill was not timely presented)