Justia West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court removing the child B.A. from the custody of Petitioners, foster parents, holding that the circuit court properly considered Petitioners' finances but that remand was required for a full analysis of the facts within the framework of the sibling preference contained in W. Va. Code 49-4-111(e) and the holding in In re Carol B., 550 S.E.2d 636 (W. Va. 2001).Petitioners had already adopted B.A.'s older sibling when B.A. was placed in their foster care. The guardian ad litem appointed to represent B.A. later discovered a number of liens and judgments against Petitioners, as well as more than $46,000 in unpaid child support. The guardian recommended that B.A. be removed from Petitioners' custody due to those issues. The circuit court directed that B.A. be removed from Petitioners' custody, finding that Petitioners would not meet the prerequisites to adopt the child under W. Va. Code 48-22-701(d). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in its apparent failure to place any weight on Petitioners' adoption of B.A.'s sibling and that Petitioners' home was the only home B.A. had ever known. The Court remanded the case for the circuit court to perform a best interests analysis making detailed consideration of the sibling preference. View "In re B.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court that ordered the West Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to grant the application for a motor vehicle salesperson license submitted by Timothy McCabe, holding that W. Va. Code 17A-6E-4(c)(5) is rationally related to the State's legitimate interest in preventing fraudulent activity in the motor vehicle industry and is not arbitrary or discriminatory.McCabe was denied a permanent motor vehicle salesperson license pursuant to section 17A-6E-4(c)(5), which prohibits the issuance of a motor vehicle salesperson license to an applicant previously convicted of a felony involving financial matters or the motor vehicle industry. The circuit court ordered that McCabe's application for a motor vehicle salesperson license be granted, concluding that the statute cannot lawfully be applied to applicants who were convicted of felonies prior to the enactment of the statute, that Defendant was denied due process, and that the statute is both constitutionally overbroad and overly narrow. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 17A-6E-4(c)(5) is a regulatory statute that does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws; (2) Defendant was afforded his procedural due process rights; and (3) the statute is neither overly broad nor overly narrow. View "Frazier v. McCabe" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order granting Antero Resources Corporation partial summary judgment on its claim for declaratory judgment, holding that the court did not err in concluding that the Antero top lease took priority over the EQT Production Company base lease covering the same property.Larry and Linda Lemasters, who owned the oil and gas underlying a tract of land, entered into an oil and gas lease (the base lease) with an LLC that later assigned the lease to EQT. The Lemasters subsequently entered into an oil and gas lease with Antero (the top lease). The lease was made effective immediately upon expiration of the primary term of the base lease. The Lemasters and EQT (together, Defendants) subsequently entered into a base lease amendment agreeing to extend the primary term of the base lease. Antero filed a complaint against Defendants asserting claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The circuit court awarded summary judgment for Antero on its declaratory judgment claim, determining that the base lease and its amendment were subject to the Antero top lease. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in declaring that the top lease was the valid and existing oil and gas lease covering the subject property. View "EQT Production Co. v. Antero Resources Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting summary judgment for Antero Resources Corp. and declaring that Bison Interests, LLC was entitled to no overriding royalty interest in the Marcellus shale formation underlying certain gas wells, holding that the declaratory judgment sought by Antero was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and judicial estoppel.The circuit court found Antero's action was barred neither by res judicata nor collateral estoppel because the issue of Bison's entitlement to an overriding royalty in the Marcellus shale production had not been finally adjudicated in prior litigation. The court further found that Antero was not judicially estopped from bringing its claim. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Antero's action for declaratory relief was barred by the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) Antero's action was similarly, and independently, barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. View "Bison Interests, LLC, v. Antero Resources Corp." on Justia Law

In these two related proceedings the Supreme Court granted the writs of prohibition sought by Monster Tree Service Inc. (Monster, Inc.) and Monster Franchise, LLC to set aside defaults entered against them in the circuit court, holding that the circuit court erred by failing to grant Monster, Inc.'s and Monster Franchise's motions to set aside their defaults.Respondent was injured when he fell from a tree while working for Monster Tree Service of the Upper Ohio Valley, Inc. (Monster UOV), an Ohio corporation. Respondent sustained his injuries in Marshall County, West Virginia. Respondent sued Monster UOV, Monster Franchise, and Monster, Inc. in Marshall County Circuit Court. The circuit court later entered defaults against all defendants. Monster Franchise and Monster, Inc. moved to set aside their defaults. The circuit court denied both motions. The Supreme Court granted both entities' writs of prohibition, holding (1) Respondent's attempt at service on Monster Franchise was ineffective and that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter a default judgment against Monster Franchise; and (2) the circuit court committed clear error as a matter of law when it refused to vacate Monster, Inc.'s default. View "State ex rel. Monster Tree Service, Inc. v. Cramer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's order affirming the order of the family court refusing Petitioner's motion for a downward modification of his monthly child support obligation to Respondent for the benefit of their three children, holding that the circuit court erred in allowing the family court to refuse to modify the parenting plan and child support award on the basis of Respondent's higher income and the current custodial arrangement.Specifically, the Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the circuit court's order leaving unchanged the amount of income attributed to Petitioner in the parties' original child support order; but (2) reversed the portion of the circuit court's order failing to modify child support based upon the fact that two of the parties' children now reside with Petitioner and his family instead of Respondent and that Respondent's income had substantially increased since the entry of the child support order. The Court remanded this case for the family court to hold a hearing, make findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding child support, and to enter a modified child support order in accordance with the provisions of this opinion. View "Hassan G. v. Tamra P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction on a felony charge of fleeing from a law enforcement officer in a vehicle while operating the vehicle in a manner showing a reckless indifference to the safety of others, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no error in the trial court’s giving of an instruction that evidence of flight may be considered by the jury, along with other facts and circumstances, to show consciousness of guilt; and (2) the court’s failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense of fleeing in a vehicle but without reckless indifference was error, but the error was not reversible under the applicable standard of review. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court reversing the order of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) affirming the revocation of Respondent's driver's license for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), holding that the circuit court erred.The arresting officer in this case did not attend the OAH hearing. In affirming the revocation, the OAH relied on the officer's DUI information sheet. The circuit court reversed, holding that the Division of Motor Vehicle's (DMV) records, including the DUI information sheet, should not have been admitted into evidence and considered by the OAH. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the OAH was statutorily obligated to receive the DMV's file, including the arresting officer's DUI information sheet, into evidence, and the circuit court's ruling to the contrary was clearly erroneous; and (2) the circuit court erred in ruling that the DMV had the burden of securing the arresting officer's attendance at the OAH hearing. View "Frazier v. Fouch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Petitioner's motion to dismiss an indictment that alleged eighteen felony sexual offenses against him involving two minors, holding that the three-term rule was not violated in this case.In his motion to dismiss, Petitioner claimed that because three regular terms of court passed without a trial he was entitled to be discharged from prosecution for the offenses charged in the indictment, pursuant to W. Va. Code 62-3-21. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) three unexcused terms of court did not pass without a trial; and (2) therefore, Petitioner's right to be tried without unreasonable delay, pursuant to section 62-3-21, was not violated. View "State v. Paul C." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's May 15, 2019 amended adjudicatory order in the underlying abuse and neglect case, holding that the circuit court erred by refusing to find both that Father had committed sexual abuse of A.M. and that Mother was an abusive and/or neglectful parent because she had failed to protect both of her children from such abuse.By the 2019 order, the circuit court determined Father to be an abusive and/or neglectful parent of his two children and concluded that Mother had committed no abuse and/or neglect of the children. On appeal, the children's guardian ad litem argued that the circuit court erred by failing also to adjudicate Father of sexual abuse of the oldest child, A.M. and by not finding Mother to be an abusive and/or neglectful parent based upon her failure to protect the children from such sexual abuse. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the circuit court's 2019 amended adjudicatory order and to enter a new amended adjudicatory order finding that Father sexually abused A.M. and that Mother was an abusive and/or neglectful parent. View "In re A.M." on Justia Law