Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

March. 10, 2015 Volume 9 Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin and therefore Hotboxxx lacked standing (i.e., the legal right to sue). The district court agreed with the City and dismissed the case. Hotboxxx then filed a new complaint in the county court, and the City again moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of standing. Hotboxxx, however, argued that standing requirements are different under Mississippi state law than under federal law. It maintained that whether or not its busi- ness license application was complete on submission, its lease of the com- mercial building constituted the necessary "colorable interest" to give it standing to challenge the zoning ordinance restriction in state court. The chancellor of the county chancery court disagreed. He held that the business license application was incomplete as submitted and therefore Hotboxxx had no standing to sue. Hotboxxx appealed. DECISION: Judgment of county chancery court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that Hotboxxx did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the City zoning ordinance The court found that since Hotboxxx's business license application was not properly signed or notarized, the application was invalid. The court addressed Hotboxxx's argument that its lease gave it the suf- ficient "colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation" to merit standing to challenge the Ordinance, the court agreed that standing require- ments in Mississippi courts differs from those in federal courts. The court noted that while federal courts require an "injury in fact," Mississippi courts require the plaintiff to assert a "colorable interest in the subject -matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant . . . ." A "colorable interest," explained the court, is one in which the plaintiff has a right to judicial enforcement of a legal duty of the defendant, or one where the plaintiff can "show in himself a present, existent actionable title or interest, and demonstrate that . . . right was complete at the time of the institution of the action." Here, the court found that Hotboxxx lacked a colorable interest. It did not have a valid license application. Moreover, a provision in Hotboxxx's lease provided that in the event Hotboxxx could not obtain a business license, the lease would be void. Thus, concluded the court, although Hotboxxx had an interest in land affected by the Ordinance, when Hotboxxx failed to submit a valid license application and failed to obtain a license, its lease became void, and Hotboxxx then no longer had an interest in the land—and therefore had no standing. See also: Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So, 2d 998 (Miss. 1995). See also: City of Picayune v. Southern Regional Corp., 916 So. 2d 510 (Miss. 2005). Case Note: The City had also argued that Hotboxxx's new complaint was barred under the 6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters