{ "id": 8154666, "name": "CITY of CENTERTON v. CITY of BENTONVILLE", "name_abbreviation": "City of Centerton v. City of Bentonville", "decision_date": "2009-01-30", "docket_number": "08-380", "first_page": "439", "last_page": "446", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "375 Ark. 439" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "291 S.W.3d 594" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "225 Ark. 922", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1642943 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/225/0922-01" ] }, { "cite": "234 Ark. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1688318 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/234/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 Ark. 825", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724711 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/201/0825-01" ] }, { "cite": "16 S.W. 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1320413 ], "year": 1891, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/54/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 Ark. 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1895731 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142" }, { "page": "636" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/294/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "352 Ark. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1159672 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "221" }, { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/352/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 Ark. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875369 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/289/0204-01" ] }, { "cite": "298 Ark. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1889884 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "557" }, { "page": "741" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/298/0554-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-40-503", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-40-302", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(3)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 Ark. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 377575 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348" }, { "page": "135" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/332/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 Ark. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8152079 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111" }, { "page": "93" }, { "page": "111" }, { "page": "93" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/375/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 14-40-601", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ark. App. 427", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6142973 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/75/0427-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 Ark. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3559645 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/362/0547-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 592, "char_count": 13277, "ocr_confidence": 0.791, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2009084313409778 }, "sha256": "4b86beec02bc78c9922de6a15a25d78eece949c82dc8e33d9aaa04e7c468ec22", "simhash": "1:c5f762bf248b36d8", "word_count": 2183 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:16.941269+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CITY of CENTERTON v. CITY of BENTONVILLE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jim Hannah, Chief Justice.\nThe City of Centerton appeals a judgment of the Benton County Circuit Court declaring as invalid its annexation of surrounded land described as \u201cWest Island.\u201d Centerton argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the appellees City of Bentonville, a municipal corporation, George and Nancy Huber, Daniel and Ruby Davies, Sandra and Gary Townsend, and the Lois Peters Revocable Trust (collectively referred to as \u201cBentonville\u201d) satisfied their burden of proof to show that Center-ton\u2019s annexation of West Island failed to meet the requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-302(a) (Supp. 2005). We affirm the decision of the circuit court. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule l-2(b)(5).\nCenterton annexed two areas of unincorporated and surrounded land known as \u201cWest Island\u201d and \u201cEast Island.\u201d Both sections of land are completely surrounded by the neighboring municipalities of Centerton and Bentonville. Only West Island is at issue in this appeal.\nAs permitted under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-501 (Supp. 2005), Centerton, as the municipality with the greatest distance of city limits adjoining West Island, passed an ordinance to annex West Island. At about the same time, Benton-ville annexed West Island by petition of adjoining landowners, as permitted under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-601 (Repl. 1998). Bentonville sued Centerton, alleging that West Island failed to comply with the requirements qualifying the land for annexation by Centerton under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-302(a). A judgment was entered declaring Center-ton\u2019s annexation invalid.\nAdmission by Bentonville\nCenterton argues first that Bentonville\u2019s annexation of West Island by petition constitutes an admission by Bentonville that West Island met not only the requirements for annexation by Bentonville, but also for annexation by Centerton. Based on this alleged admission, Centerton argues that Bentonville may not assert that Centerton\u2019s annexation was invalid. An admission is an acknowledgment or concession of a fact. See Ferguson v. State, 362 Ark. 547, 210 S.W.3d 53 (2005).\nCenterton asserts that \u201cMr. Peters\u2019 signature on that petition is an admission that the Trust\u2019s property met at least one of the five criteria set out in A.C.A. \u00a7 14-40-302(a).\u201d Peters is an owner of property in West Island in an area referred to as the land south of Motley Road. He, among other landowners, petitioned to be annexed into Bentonville. Centerton cites us to City of Marion v. Guaranty Loan & Real Estate Co., 75 Ark. App. 427, 58 S.W.3d 410 (2001), for the proposition that annexations by petition under section 14-40-601 must satisfy at least one of the listed criteria for annexation set out in section 14-40-302(a) before an area may be annexed. Centerton further argues that only when the land to be annexed meets at least one of the criteria set out in section 14-40-302(a) is the petition \u201cright and proper\u201d as required for annexation by petition in Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-603 (a) (Repl. 1998).\nWith regard to whether the criteria of section 14-40-302(a) apply to annexation by petition of adjoining landowners, even though section 14-40-302(a) is not mentioned in the statutes on annexation by petition, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 14-40-601 to -606 (Repl. 1998), this court in City of Jacksonville v. City of Sherwood, 375 Ark. 107, 111, 289 S.W.3d 90, 93 (2008), stated that \u201cthe criteria apply regardless of whether the annexation proceeding was initiated by the city or by adjoining landowners.\u201d See also Town of Houston v. Carden, 332 Ark. 340, 965 S.W.2d 131 (1998). Where at least one of the criteria of section 14-40-302(a) is met, the petition of adjoining landowners is \u201cright and proper\u201d under section 14-40-603(a). Id.\nWe agree that Bentonville in the landowners\u2019 petition asserted that the annexation of West Island was right and proper, and that implicit within that petition is an assertion that West Island met at least one of the criteria of section 14-40-302(a) with respect to the annexation by Bentonville. However, the landowners\u2019 petition makes no assertion, implicit or otherwise, that West Island met at least one of the criteria of section 14-40-302(a) with respect to the annexation by Centerton. That West Island met a criterion with respect to Bentonville does not necessarily mean that it met that same criterion or any other criteria with respect to Centerton. For example, the actual growth of one municipality surrounding an island might be moving into an island while the actual growth of another surrounding municipality might not. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-40-302(a)(3). In the landowners\u2019 petition, neither Bentonville nor the petitioners make an admission that West Island met the requirements for annexation by Centerton.\nPrima Facie Presumption of Compliance With Section 14-40-302(a)\nCiting Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-503 (a) (2) (Repl. 1998), Centerton next argues that when the majority of its governing body voted for annexation, a prima facie case of annexation was established that Bentonville had to overcome in its suit challenging the annexation. Section 14-40-503(a)(2) provides, \u201cIf a majority of the total number of members of the governing body vote for the proposed annexation ordinance, then a prima facie case for annexation shall be established, and the city shall proceed to render services to the annexed area.\u201d A decision to annex becomes final in thirty days unless challenged in circuit court. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-40-503(b) (Repl. 1998). The burden rests on those objecting to the annexation to produce sufficient evidence to defeat the prima facie case, and that means that they must show that the area should not be annexed. Gay v. City of Springdale, 298 Ark. 554, 769 S.W.2d 740 (1989). The party challenging the ordinance bears the burden of proving the annexation was improper. Id. However, this court has noted that \u201cby the very nature of this type of litigation, there is a wide latitude for divergence of opinion and, consequently, a high degree of reliance must be placed upon the findings of the trial judge.\u201d Id. at 557, 769 S.W.2d at 741. A finding by a circuit court on annexation will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Town of Houston, supra.\nAnnexation is proper where any one of the criteria set out in section 14-40-302(a) is met. Lee v. City of Pine Bluff, 289 Ark. 204, 710 S.W.2d 205 (1989). However, \u201c[ijfapart of the proposed area does not meet one of the five requirements, the annexation of the entire area is void in toto.\u201d Town of Houston, 332 Ark. at 348, 965 S.W.2d at 135. Section 14-40-302(a) provides as follows:\n(a) By vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the total number of members making up its governing body, any municipality may adopt an ordinance to annex lands contiguous to the municipahty if the lands are any of the following:\n(1) Platted and held for sale or use as municipal lots;\n(2) Whether platted or not, if the lands are held to be sold as suburban property;\n(3) When the lands furnish the abode for a densely setded community or represent the actual growth of the municipahty beyond its legal boundary;\n(4) When the lands are needed for any proper municipal purposes such as for the extension of needed police regulation; or\n(5) When they are valuable by reason of their adaptability for prospective municipal uses.\nAfter all the evidence was admitted, the circuit court issued a decision and stated that there was no indication that Centerton \u201clooks at that property as meeting any of these factors in 14-40-302.\u201d The circuit court went on to state that it had carefully considered the criteria in section 14-40-302(a), and that while the court was reluctant to overturn an action of the Centerton city council, the \u201cPeters property and the property below the road [Motley] on the south simply don\u2019t meet any of the criteria of 14-40-302.\u201d The evidence supports this decision. Centerton Mayor Ken Williams testified that the Peters\u2019 land south of Motley Road was annexed because, \u201cin order to take in the whole island we had to take it in.\u201d Williams made no reference to any requirement of section 14-40-302(a). The land south of Motley Road was annexed because to get the land Centerton wanted, Centerton had to annex the land south of Motley Road as well. Nonetheless, Centerton argues that there was no proof that West Island did not meet the requirements of section 14-40-302(a)(3)-(5) (Supp. 2005).\nSection 14-40-302(a)(3) provides that lands may be annexed \u201cwhen the lands furnish the abode for a densely settled community or represent the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary.\u201d Mayor Williams testified that the area south of Motley Road in West Island was not densely populated. He also testified that to his knowledge, \u201cthere are no municipal plans or uses for the property south of Motley Road.\u201d Williams did make reference to a \u201csmall subdivision\u201d that would be in the area south of Motley Road, but the annexation did not represent the actual growth of Centerton beyond its legal boundary. Further, the circuit court found that the only evidence regarding the use of the Peters property south of Motley Road was that is was used for farming. Agricultural and horticultural lands are not to be annexed when their highest and best use is agriculture or horticulture. Town of Houston, supra.\nSection 14-40-302 (a) (4) provides that lands may be annexed when \u201cthe lands are needed for any proper municipal purposes such as for the extension of needed police regulation.\u201d In an October 7, 2005 letter providing notice of an annexation hearing on West Island and East Island, Centerton stated plainly that the annexation was necessary to protect Centerton\u2019s loans, funding, and plans for water service. No other reason for annexation was offered. Mayor Williams was asked in cross-examination to confirm that \u201cthe sole reason for this island annexation was to preserve water customers for the City of Centerton.\u201d He responded, \u201cCorrect.\u201d He then testified that the area south of Motley Road was not part of the water service area the annexation was to protect. Clearly, the land south of Motley Road was only annexed to obtain the \u201cwhole island.\u201d Bentonville showed that there was no municipal purpose in annexing the property south of Motley Road. When part of the annexed land fails to meet at least one of the five criteria of section 14-40-302(a), the entire annexation is void in toto.\nSection 14-40-302(a)(5) provides that lands are subject to annexation \u201c[w]hen they are valuable by reason of their adaptability for prospective municipal uses.\u201d Mayor Williams was asked, \u201cTo your knowledge, do you have any municipal plans, municipal uses for this property south of Motley Road?\u201d He responded, \u201cNo, we don\u2019t.\u201d Centerton now argues that other municipal services such as fire and police constitute evidence that the presumption arising from the prima facie case was not overcome; however, as the circuit court noted, Centerton was asked about municipal services and responded that water service was the sole reason for annexation.\nThe circuit court stated that it had looked carefully at the section 14-40-302 (a) criteria and that not one of the criteria was met as to the land lying south of Motley Road. In reviewing this matter with a high degree of reliance placed upon the findings of the trial judge, we find no basis for Centerton\u2019s allegation that the circuit court\u2019s decision declaring the annexation invalid was clearly erroneous.\nAffirmed.\nCenterton argues that the circuit court erred in finding that the criteria of Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-302(a) (Supp. 2005) do not apply to annexation by petition of adjoining landowners under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-601 (Supp. 2005). The circuit court erred. See City of Jacksonville v. City of Sherwood, 375 Ark. 107, 111, 289 S.W.3d 90, 93 (2008). However, this error does not require reversal in this case because Bentonville also showed that none of the section 14-40-302(a) criteria were met.\nArkansas Code Annotated section 14-40-302(a) (Supp. 2005) sets out what are sometimes referred to as the \u201cVestal criteria.\u201d See Utley v. City of Dover, 352 Ark. 212, 221, 101 S.W.3d 191, 194 (2003); Chastain v. Davis, 294 Ark. 134, 142, 741 S.W.2d 632, 636 (1987). This court in Vestal v. Little Rock, 54 Ark. 321, 16 S.W. 291 (1891), discussed the criteria that could be met to satisfy the requirements of the then applicable statutes on annexation. See 29 Mansfield Digest \u00a7\u00a7 916-923, at 324-25 (1884). Annexation is a special statutory proceeding. Posey v. Paxton, 201 Ark. 825, 147 S.W.2d 39 (1941). Thus, annexation is defined by statute. See Rooker v. City of Little Rock, 234 Ark. 372, 352 S.W.2d 172 (1967); Grayson v. Arrington, 225 Ark. 922, 286 S.W.2d 501 (1956). The criteria set out in Vestal were modified and adopted into the current statutes as section 14-40-302(a).", "type": "majority", "author": "Jim Hannah, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Slinkard Law Firm, by: Andrew R. Huntsinger, for appellant.", "Clark & Spence, by: George R. Spence, Bentonville City Attorney, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CITY of CENTERTON v. CITY of BENTONVILLE\n08-380\n291 S.W.3d 594\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 30, 2009\nSlinkard Law Firm, by: Andrew R. Huntsinger, for appellant.\nClark & Spence, by: George R. Spence, Bentonville City Attorney, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0439-01", "first_page_order": 469, "last_page_order": 476 }