James E. Collins v. Messenger Limited Partnership, Inc.

Petitioner James E. Collins, by counsel, Lawrence E. Fraley, III, appeals from the Preston County Circuit Court's award of summary judgment in favor of respondents, Messenger Limited Partnership, Inc. and Wood Products, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "respondent”), as reflected in orders entered on December 13, 2010, January 13, 2011, and May 24, 2011, in this action seeking, inter alia, to quiet title to certain real estate. Respondent, by counsel, Amy M. Smith and John R. Callcott, has filed a brief in response.

This Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties' written briefs and the record on appeal, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Petitioner owns a parcel of land adjacent to the 108-acre tract of land that is in dispute. The boundaries of the two tracts apparently overlap by several acres, which was the subject of the original conflict between the parties. In the course of investigating the nature and cause of the overlap, petitioner states that he discovered that respondent did not appear to have title to the disputed property. Petitioner alleged that there were discrepancies dating back to a judicial sale of real estate by a special commissioner in 1933, which sale arose out of litigation instituted in 1931 ("the 1931 litigation”).

Petitioner instituted the case at bar seeking to quiet title to the 108-acre tract with related claims for timber trespass, a way of necessity, and the defacement and removal of survey monuments. Petitioner asserted that the disputed property was not a part of the judgment debtor's property conveyed by the special commissioner to C. Hartmeyer in 1933. Petitioner further asserted that he had acquired title to the disputed property through quitclaim deeds from the heirs of the judgment debtor in the 1931 litigation. Respondent argued that the disputed property was, in fact, a part of the judgment debtor's property conveyed by the special commissioner to C. Hartmeyer in 1933; therefore, petitioner could not have acquired title to the same through the quitclaim deeds.

The parties filed competing summary judgment motions below. A hearing on the motions was held on November 9, 2010, resulting in the circuit court granting summary judgment in favor of respondent on petitioner's claim that the disputed property was within petitioner's chain of title. The circuit court found that petitioner does not have title to the disputed property for the reasons set forth in its "Order Regarding the Motions for Summary Judgment” entered on December 13, 2010, and in its "Amended and Revised Order Regarding the Motions for Summary Judgment” entered on January 13, 2011.

A second hearing was held on December 22, 2010, to address petitioner's remaining claims regarding the overlap between his property and the disputed tract, timber trespass, way of necessity, and the defacement and removal of survey monuments. In the "Order Regarding the December 22, 2010, Hearing Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment” entered on May 24, 2011, the circuit court found that it was appropriate to dismiss with prejudice petitioner's timber trespass and way of necessity claims, which were tied to the disputed property, given its earlier ruling that petitioner does not have title to that property. The circuit court denied respondent's motion for summary judgment on petitioner's claim for defacement and removal of survey monuments because that claim relates to the overlap issue that remained in dispute.1

This Court reviews a circuit court's entry of summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). Upon a careful review of the record and the parties' respective briefs, this Court finds no error. The circuit court appropriately gave effect to the Notice of Sale from the 1931 litigation and reconciled all parts of that Notice with other portions of the court file for the 1931 litigation, including the Bill of Complaint, Amended Bill of Complaint, and the Decree of Sale, as well as the special commissioner's deed to C. Hartmeyer, in reaching its conclusion that the disputed property "was identified and otherwise encompassed bythe language in the Notice of Sale” from the 1931 litigation and was, thereafter, conveyed by the special commissioner to C. Hartmeyer in 1933. Inasmuch as petitioner does not have title to the disputed property, the circuit court correctly dismissed with prejudice petitioner's claims for timber trespass and way of necessity as they were directly tied to the disputed property.

Petitioner also asserts that the circuit court erred by essentially conducting an unnoticed bench trial at the November 10, 2010, hearing on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment. Petitioner contends that there were issues of fact raised during this hearing concerning how the disputed property was treated in later years, which could not be resolved by summary judgment. However, the circuit court's Amended Order arising out of the November 10 hearing reflects, as does the transcript from that hearing, that the circuit court's ruling was based upon how the 1931 litigation affected the ownership of the disputed property, which the parties agreed was an issue of law to be decided by the circuit court. Accordingly, we find no error in this regard.

* * *

See: http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/memo-decisions/spring2012/11-0086and11-0901memo.pdf

The Court adopts, incorporates, and attaches hereto the circuit court’s well-reasoned summary judgment orders referenced herein. For the reasons stated in those Orders and for all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed.