Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the order of the circuit court applying prejudgment interest to the jury verdict in this lawsuit alleging breach of express and implied warranties and other claims but otherwise affirmed, holding that the circuit court erred in its assessment of prejudgment interest.Plaintiff sued Defendant, a car dealership, alleging breaches of consumer laws and contract principles. During discovery, DCW withheld requested documents even after the circuit court imposed monetary sanctions. When the requested documents appeared as an exhibit in DCW's motion for summary judgment the circuit court denied the motion and sanctioned DCW. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion by issuing the sanction, approving the jury's verdict, and ordering DCW to pay attorney fees and costs; but (2) erred by applying prejudgment interest to the entire verdict. View "Dan's Car World, LLC v. Delaney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to compel arbitration, holding that the circuit court did not err.Respondents Louise McGraw and Charlotte Rodgers, by and through their daughters, Nancy Reuschel and Loretta Holcomb, filed a complaint against Petitioner, Chancellor Senior Management, Ltd., arguing that Petitioner defrauded their mothers by making misrepresentations and misleading statements and concealing material facts, in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). See W. Va. Code 46A-1-101 to -8-102. Petitioner filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision set forth in the residency agreement Reuschel and Holcomb signed on behalf of their motions. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that the agreement could not be enforced as written. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in determining that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced as written because it did not "comply with its own stated standards." View "Chancellor Senior Management, Ltd. v. McGraw" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted a writ of prohibition sought by Petitioner to prohibit the circuit court from enforcing its order to strike the notice it received pursuant to W. Va. Code 55-7-13d regarding Respondent's belief that some or all of the fault in the matter should be assigned to the Monongalia County Commission, holding that Petitioner was entitled to the writ.Respondent was employed by the County Commission when he was injured his work. After resolving his workers' compensation claim Respondent sued Petitioner for further compensation. Thereafter, Petitioner filed the motion at issue. The circuit court granted Respondent's motion to strike the notice, concluding that fault could not be assigned to the County Commission, and, alternatively, that Petitioner failed to allege deliberate intention on the part of the County Commission. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of prohibition, holding (1) the circuit court committed clear error in ruling that the County Commission could not be named as a nonparty defendant under W.Va. Code 55-7-13d; and (2) section 55-7-13d did not require Petitioner to meet the deliberate-intention standard in order for fault to be assigned to the County Commission. View "State ex rel. March-Westin Co. v. Honorable Phillip D. Gaujot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered a certified question from the circuit court by holding that Defendant's conviction for "attempted to commit an assault during the commission of a felony" was a qualifying offense under Sex Offender Registration Act, W. Va. Code 15-12-1 to -10, requiring Defendant to be a lifetime registrant.Defendant pled guilty to one count of attempt to commit a felony and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. At the time of his conviction and sentence Defendant was not required to register as a sex offender. Defendant later entered an Alford/Kennedy plea to two counts of failure to register as a sex offender. Defendant then filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis and motion in arrest of judgment, claiming he was not required to register. The circuit court certified the question to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that the Act required Defendant to register as a sex offender for life because his conviction was based on a proffer that Defendant committed sexual assault in the third degree, which was a qualifying offense under the Act. View "State v. Conn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the circuit court dismissing Petitioner's claim against Respondent for defamation, holding that Petitioner's allegation that Respondent made the supposed defamatory statement maliciously precluded dismissal of Petitioner's claim under W. Va. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).Petitioner, a patrolman with the Town of Belle's Police Department, brought this complaint alleging that Respondent had made a defamatory statement against him, knew the statement was false, and made the statement intending to harm Petitioner's reputation. The circuit court dismissed the defamation claim on grounds of qualified privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the order dismissing the defamation claim against Respondent, individually, holding that it was error to find that Respondent acted in good faith, despite Petitioner's clear allegation to the contrary, and so to dismiss Petitioner's defamation claim against Respondent. View "Haught v. Fletcher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the circuit court finding that the after-acquired title doctrine cured any irregularity in the assignment of the deed of trust on the subject property in this case, holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner filed suit against NPML Mortgage Acquisitions, LLC after he received a foreclosure notice stating that his real property located in Granville was going to be sold. Petitioner brought this suit, alleging that NPML Mortgage did not have a valid assignment of the deed of trust. The circuit court granted summary judgment for NPML Mortgage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a litigant who is not a party to a mortgage assignment or a party intended to benefit from the assignment lacks standing to challenge the assignment; and (2) Petitioner did not have standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the deed of trust to NPML Mortgage. View "Pavone v. NPML Mortgage Acquisitions, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) appeal of a final order of the office of administrative hearings (OAH) after concluding that Respondent could not have his driver's license revoked for his refusal to submit to a designated secondary chemical test, holding that there was no error.The OAH and circuit court determined that because the arresting officer failed to provide defendant with a written copy of the implied consent statement Respondent could not have his driver's license revoked for his refusal to submit to a designated secondary chemical test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the OAH and the circuit court were correct in their application of the law; and (2) W. Va. 17C-5-7(a) requires that a driver be given both an oral warning and a written statement advising her of the consequences of refusing to submit to the designated secondary chemical test. View "Frazier v. Slye" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court enforcing a settlement agreement between Petitioner and his insurer, Respondent Allstate Company, and denying Petitioner's request to amend his complaint or allow the filing of a new complaint, holding that there was no error.The settlement agreement at issue related to water damages occurring at Petitioner's real property. Petitioner failed to execute and return the agreement, after which Respondent filed a motion to enforce settlement. Petitioner then filed a motion to amend the complaint or, in the alternative, allow the filing of a new complaint. The circuit court granted Respondent's motion to enforce the settlement and denied Petitioner's motion to amend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err as to any of its challenged rulings. View "Donahue v. Mammoth Restoration & Cleaning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for knowingly providing false or misleading information to a member of the City of Martinsburg Police Department, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.Defendant's conviction arose from an incident during which Detective Jonathan Smith, who was not wearing a uniform, went to Defendant's home to investigate information regarding a potential fraudulent credit card charge associated with Defendant's address. Detective Smith, who did not initially identify himself as a law enforcement officer, asked Defendant personal questions, in response to which Defendant gave a false name. Later in the conversation, Detective Smith informed Defendant that he was a police officer, but Defendant did not subsequently notify Detective Smith of her real name. The circuit court convicted Defendant for violating section 509.05 of the City of Martinsburg Municipal Code. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in finding that Defendant was required to notify an investigating law enforcement officer of her real name after learning that he was in actuality a law enforcement officer. View "City of Martinsburg v. Dunbar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court that re-sentenced Defendant, for purposes of appeal, to an indeterminate term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years in connection for his conviction of one count of sexual abuse by a parent or person in a position of trust to a child, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to suppress his recorded confession and allowing Defendant's interview at the police department to be played for the jury; (2) the circuit court did not err by failing to give two jury instructions proffered by Defendant; and (3) Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was not properly before this Court on direct appeal. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law