Sharon G. Lee v. City of Byram, Mississippi, 269 So. 3d 1194

Sharon and Herbert Lee challenged a 2012 City of Byram zoning ordinance, alleging they were not given required notice before the city rezoned property on Siwell Road near their home.
The 2012 ordinance described the rezoned land as "certain property located on Siwell Road owned by Hillcrest Motors," creating ambiguity between (a) a small commercial parcel that houses Hillcrest Motors (owned by Brett and Joni Hutchins) and (b) an adjacent 87-acre tract owned by Hillcrest Motors LLC.
The City later adopted corrective rezonings in 2013 and 2014 reclassifying the dealership site and a two-acre dance-studio parcel; the City argued these subsequent actions mooted the 2012 ordinance.
The Lees filed their complaint roughly ten months after the 2012 zoning decision; the circuit court dismissed it for failure to file a timely appeal under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75 (10-day appeal window).
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the notice published for the 2012 hearing was deficient, so an appeal under § 11-51-75 was not the exclusive remedy and the ten-day appeal deadline did not bar the Lees’ suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give required notice makes the statutory appeal procedure non‑exclusive	Lee: Published notice was deficient; therefore the 10‑day appeal remedy is not exclusive and the Lees may bring their suit	City: The Lees should have appealed under § 11‑51‑75 within ten days; dismissal was proper	Court: Held notice was deficient; appeal was not exclusive; dismissal for failure to timely appeal was error
Whether later rezonings (2013/2014) rendered the 2012 ordinance moot	Lee: The 2012 ordinance, on its face, appears to affect the 87‑acre tract; subsequent rezonings do not eliminate the question created by the 2012 text	City: Subsequent corrective rezonings cured any issue and moot the 2012 ordinance	Court: Held the ordinance’s text controls; there remains a live controversy and the matter is not moot
Whether the suit should be dismissed for failure to prosecute	Lee: Not applicable (trial court did not base dismissal on this)	City: Case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute (raised on appeal)	Court: Held failure‑to‑prosecute argument was raised first on appeal and is barred; cannot be considered

City of Jackson v. Jordan, 202 So. 3d 199 (Miss. 2016) (when required notice is not given, the statutory appeal under § 11‑51‑75 is not necessarily the exclusive remedy)
Williams v. Walley, 295 So. 2d 286 (Miss. 1974) (lack of required notice can render statutory appeal inadequate and non‑exclusive)
Malone v. Leake Cty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 841 So. 2d 141 (Miss. 2003) (appeal under § 11‑51‑75 generally is the exclusive remedy for municipal decisions)
Wellness Inc. v. Pearl River County Hosp., 178 So. 3d 1287 (Miss. 2015) (public boards act through their minutes; minutes control the board’s official actions)
Anderson v. LaVere, 136 So. 3d 404 (Miss. 2014) (issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally barred)