Tunica County Board of Supervisors v. HWCC-Tunica, LLC
237 So. 3d 115
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Tunica County Board of Supervisors adopted the FY 2014–15 budget and increased millage on September 15, 2014; total millage change was about 15.13 mills and included a new 9‑mill road levy.
- The Board published a newspaper notice on August 22, 2014 advertising a public hearing for August 28, 2014 (when no levy vote occurred); a separate notice advertising an alleged hearing for September 30, 2014 ran once on September 19, 2014.
- HWCC‑Tunica, LLC (Hollywood Casino) paid the contested taxes under protest, then filed a bill of exceptions in Tunica County Circuit Court arguing the levy was void for failure to comply with statutory notice/hearing requirements (Miss. Code § 27‑39‑203(2) (2012)).
- The circuit court held the Board failed to comply with mandatory advertising/hearing requirements and ordered relief (refund). The Board appealed.
- The Supreme Court considered (1) whether the circuit court had jurisdiction given procedural filing formalities for appeals from boards (§§ 11‑51‑75 and 11‑51‑77), and (2) whether the notice/hearing statute was mandatory and the levy therefore void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: proper appellate vehicle and compliance with procedural prerequisites | HWCC: its bill of exceptions challenged the levy and, because taxes were assessed and paid under protest, §11‑51‑77 could govern; payment under protest waived bond requirement | Board: HWCC used wrong procedure (bill of exceptions under §11‑51‑75) and failed to post bond and to obtain president’s signature so circuit court lacked jurisdiction | Court: Circuit court had jurisdiction—treating HWCC’s filing as a §11‑51‑77 tax‑assessment appeal was appropriate given taxes were assessed/paid; payment under protest excused bond; absence of board president’s signature did not deprive jurisdiction given record completeness |
| Signature on bill of exceptions: mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite | HWCC: signature requirement shouldn't defeat jurisdiction; defects go to adequacy of record, not court power | Board: absence of president’s signature (and timing) is fatal to jurisdiction under precedent | Court: absence of signature alone did not divest jurisdiction; concurring opinion urges clarifying precedent that signature is not a jurisdictional bar |
| Notice/hearing statutory compliance: whether §27‑39‑203(2) is directory or mandatory | HWCC: statute’s procedural advertising/hearing requirements are mandatory; failure voids levy and denies due process | Board: actual notice to taxpayers satisfied purpose; remedy under §27‑39‑203(9) is to bar expenditures until strict compliance rather than void levy | Held: Statutory notice/hearing requirements are mandatory; Board failed to comply before adopting levy (hearing and required advertising were not timely or of required frequency), so levy is void; trial court judgment affirmed |
| New vs. increased levy (road levy): did new road levy require the same notice | Board: road levy was a new levy (not an increase) and thus not subject to the increased‑levy advertising rule | HWCC: statute applies to all taxing entities and contains no new‑vs‑increase distinction; record does not show this was an initially imposed levy | Held: No evidence road levy was a first‑time municipal scenario; §27‑39‑203 applies and notice was required; Board did not comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Lenoir v. Madison County, 641 So.2d 1124 (Miss. 1994) (§11‑51‑77 controls appeals in tax matters; bill of exceptions not always prerequisite when assessment issue)
- City of Ocean Springs v. Home Builders Ass'n of Mississippi, 932 So.2d 44 (Miss. 2006) (fees characterized as taxes require statutory authority)
- Grenada Bank v. Town of Moorhead, 133 So. 666 (Miss. 1931) (payment under protest does not prevent prosecuting an appeal from an erroneous assessment)
- Gulf & Ship Island R.R. Co. v. Harrison County, 4 So.2d 717 (Miss. 1941) (statutory notice requirements for tax levies are mandatory; noncompliant levy is illegal)
- Burke v. Leggett, 79 So. 843 (Miss. 1918) (statute imposing a duty on board to designate levy purpose is mandatory; noncompliant levy void)
- Polk v. City of Hattiesburg, 69 So. 675 (Miss. 1915) (absence of mayoral signature on bill of exceptions does not automatically defeat appellate consideration when record is agreed to be correct)