Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In these appeals arising from adverse jury verdicts rendered in separate trials following an automobile accident involving Joseph Jenkins and Tessa Jordan, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court erred in part.The first trial resulted in the jury's calculation of damages sustained by Jenkins and his wife as a result of the accident, which the parties stipulated was caused through the fault of Jordan. The Jenkins also sued Safeco Insurance Company of America and liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, Safeco) for conversion. After a second trial on the Jenkins' claims for compensatory and punitive damages Safeco appealed the jury's determination that the Jenkins were entitled to punitive damages. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the circuit court's order denying the Jordans' motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial and remanded that case for a new trial, holding that the jury should have been instructed on Jenkins' duty to mitigate the loss of his vehicle; and (2) reversed the court's order denying Safeco's motion to reduce the punitive damages award, holding that remand was necessary to review the punitive damages award for excessiveness. View "Jordan v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court concluding that the right of first refusal in a deed conveying land from the grantor to the grantee but containing a clause granting the grantee to give a "stranger" the right of first refusal to any future conveyance of the land was not void under the "stranger to the deed" rule.The "stranger to the deed" rule identifies someone who is neither a grantor nor a grantee to a conveyance as a "stranger" and posits that any property interest in favor of that stranger, and which is contained in a reservation or an exception, is void. The circuit court applied the "stranger to the deed" rule and ruled that the right of first refusal clause in the deed was void and unenforceable. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a right of first refusal clause in a deed is neither an exception nor a reservation; and (2) therefore, the circuit court erred when it applied the "stranger to the deed" rule and dismissed the complaint. View "Klein v. McCullough" on Justia Law

In this dispute over a party wall agreement between adjoining property owners the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting summary judgment to all three defendants on Plaintiff's breach of the party wall agreement claim and summary judgment for two defendants on Plaintiff's negligence claim, holding that the circuit court did not err.Plaintiff owned a commercial building that shared a party wall with the adjacent property. Zen's Development, Uptown Properties, and Kenneth McBride, were the current or previous owners of the adjacent property. The circuit court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the breach of the party wall agreement claim and summary judgment to Uptown and McBride on the negligence claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on her claims of error. View "Birchfield v. Zen's Development, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, holding that the DEP was entitled to qualified immunity.Plaintiffs suffered damages to personal and real property as a result of severe flooding of Bull Creek in McDowell County. Plaintiffs filed suit against Twin Star Mining, Inc. and the DEP, claiming negligence. The DEP moved for dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity and the public duty doctrine. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying the DEP's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. View "W. Va. Department of Environmental Protection v. Dotson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court dismissing the underlying eminent domain action, holding that the sua sponte dismissal of this action without notice and an opportunity to be heard required reversal of the circuit court's order.In 1990, Respondent, the Wheeling Creek Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Commission, filed a condemnation proceeding against Petitioners' property. In 1991, Respondent received right of entry and Petitioners received Respondent's statement of just compensation. The matter lay dormant until 2018 when Petitioners filed a motion for further proceedings to determine just compensation. The circuit court (1) concluded that estoppel, laches, and applicable statutes of limitation or repose prevented Petitioners from resurrecting the matter; and (2) sua sponte found that Petitioners' withdrawal of Respondent's estimate of just compensation without further proceedings until now was sufficient proof of accord and satisfaction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred by failing to notify the parties of its intent to dispose of the matter and provide them a meaningful opportunity to respond and be heard; and (2) none of the doctrines espoused by the circuit court to preclude further prosecution prevented Petitioners from resurrecting this matter. View "Scherich v. Wheeling Creek Watershed Protection & Flood Prevention Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion for summary judgment, holding that Petitioners were immune from Respondent's lawsuit pursuant to the litigation privilege and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.Petitioners executed an oil and gas lease to a company that assigned 2,300 acres of Petitioners' tract to Respondent for a storage project. Respondent then applied to FERC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate a storage field. Petitioners intervened in the FERC proceeding. FERC eventually granted Respondent's request. When Respondent did not complete construction of the storage facility within the required amount of time it sought a three-year extension. Petitioners opposed the extension, and FERC denied Respondent's request to extend the timeframe. Thereafter, Petitioners filed suit against Respondent alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory judgment. Respondent filed a counterclaim alleging, inter alia, breach of contract. Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that they were immune from suit pursuant to the litigation privilege and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the litigation privilege and Noerr-Pennington doctrine provided Petitioners with immunity from all of Respondent's counterclaims. View "Smith v. Chestnut Ridge Storage, LLC" on Justia Law

In this tax appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the final order of the circuit court determining that certain purchases of tangible personal property and services made by Antero Resources Corporation did not qualify for the direct use exemption under W. Va. Code 9(b)(2) and 11-15A-3(a)(2) (the direct use exemption), holding that Antero was entitled to the direct use exemption for certain purchases and services.The office of tax appeals reimposed a sale and use tax assessment against Antero for purchases and rentals of certain personal property and services. The circuit court reversed, determining that because certain purchases of tangible personal property and services made by Antero were not directly used in its natural resource production, they did not qualify for the direct use exemption. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Antero (1) was entitled to the direct use exemption for crew quarters and related equipment, portable toils, sewage systems, related water systems, and septic cleaning charges; and (2) was not entitled to the exemption for the rentals of trash trailers and waste receptacles. View "Antero Resources Corp. v. Steager" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative a question certified to it by the Bankruptcy Court for the North District of West Virginia, concluding that a manufactured home with a title issued by the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) may be converted to real property by operation of common law even when the home still maintains a motor vehicle title.At issue was how, under state law, one can perfect a security interest upon a manufactured home that maintains both personal and real property characteristics. The Supreme Court determined that satisfying the requirements of Snuffer v. Spangler, 92 S.E. 106 ( W. Va. 1917) converts the legal character of a manufactured home from personal to real property such that a lien on that property may be perfected by deed of trust even if the home's owners have not cancelled the DMV title under the cancellation procedure of W. Va. Cod3 17A-3-12b(a). View "Sheehan v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment to Ruth Ann Pinson and dismissing Denise Johnson's claim that Ruth's husband, Mark Pinson, violated West Virginia's Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act's (UFTA), W. Va. Code 40-1A-1 to -15, prohibition against fraudulent transfers, holding that Plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating the existence of a material fact regarding Mark's status as her debtor within the meaning of the UFTA.Johnson asserted that Mark conveyed real property to Ruth with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Johnson's attempt to collect on a judgment assigned to her by a third party. The circuit court found that Ruth was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not misinterpret the UFTA or err in denying Johnson's motion to amend the complaint to add Mark as a defendant. View "Johnson v. Pinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioners' motion for a new trial and renewed motion for a new trial after a bench trial, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that Petitioners had neither an express easement nor a prescriptive easement across Respondents' property.At issue was an internal private road on Respondents' property that stretched to Petitioners' property. Respondents eventually revoked permission to use the internal road and blocked Petitioners' access across the private road. The circuit court determined that Petitioners had neither an express easement nor a prescriptive easement across Respondents' property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding (1) no express easement existed that granted Petitioners the right to use the private road crossing Respondents' property; and (2) no easement across Respondents' land was established by prescription. View "Carr v. Veach" on Justia Law