Waste Management of Mississippi, Inc. v. Chickasaw County, Mississippi, By and Through Its Board of Supervisors

── Waste Management of Mississippi, Inc. v. Chickasaw County, Mississippi, By and Through Its Board of Supervisors ── Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2025-CA-00378-COA WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MISSISSIPPI, INC. APPELLANT v. CHICKASAW COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI, BY AND APPELLEE THROUGH ITS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/17/2025 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN KELLY LUTHER COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CHICKASAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: SIMON TURNER BAILEY J. CAL MAYO JR. JAMES STEPHEN FRITZ JR. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JIM HOOD NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND RENDERED - 05/19/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: BEFORE WILSON, P.J., McCARTY AND EMFINGER, JJ. WILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. In 1992, Waste Management (WM) and Chickasaw County entered into a “Waste Disposal Agreement” under which WM would dispose of solid waste generated in the county at a landfill WM would operate in the county. The Agreement was for a thirty-year term and provided that the County could extend the Agreement “for the additional term of thirty (30) years or the remaining life of the Sanitary Landfill, whichever is less, to the extent such extension is consistent with Mississippi Law.” (Emphasis added). ¶2. As the Agreement’s initial thirty-year term approached its end in 2022, WM and the County disagreed as to whether the County could extend the Agreement. WM maintained that the Agreement could not be extended because Mississippi law limits such contracts to a maximum term of thirty years—hence, an extension would not be “consistent with Mississippi law.” WM stated that a new public request for proposals (RFP) and a new contract were necessary. In contrast, the County maintained that it could extend the Agreement because it was executed during an alleged seven-month “gap” or “pause” in 1992 when the statutory thirty-year limit on waste disposal contracts allegedly was “not in effect.” The County sued WM in the Chickasaw County Circuit Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it could exercise the option to extend, injunctive relief requiring WM to continue to perform under the Agreement, and damages. The circuit court ultimately agreed with the County, denied WM’s motion for summary judgment, and granted the County’s motion for summary judgment. The court ordered WM to continue to perform under the terms of the 1992 Agreement. WM filed a notice of appeal. ¶3. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the County cannot exercise the option to extend the Agreement because at all relevant times Mississippi law prohibited counties and municipalities from entering into waste disposal contracts longer than thirty years. Therefore, the plain language of the Agreement precludes an extension because the extension would not be “consistent with Mississippi law.” Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court and render summary judgment in favor of WM. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶4. Prior to 1991, Mississippi law permitted counties and municipalities to provide for the collection and disposal of solid waste and also permitted them to enter into contracts for the 2 disposal of solid waste for terms of up to twenty-five years. Specifically, Mississippi Code Annotated section 17-17-5 provided as follows: The board of supervisors or municipal governing body may be and is hereby authorized to make available to the general public collection and disposal facilities for solid wastes. The board of supervisors or municipal governing body may p