Reilley v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cnty. of Marshall

874 S.E.2d 333

Myra Kay REILLEY, Administrator of the Estate of Francis E. Reilley, and Myra Kay Reilley, individually, Defendants Below, Petitioners,

v.The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the COUNTY OF MARSHALL, Plaintiff Below, Respondent.

No. 20-0849

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted: February 15, 2022

Filed: April 26, 2022

Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esquire, Grove, Holmstrand & Delk, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, Counsel for Petitioners

Kenneth E. Webb, Esquire, Bowles Rice LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Respondent

Armstead, Justice:

The Board of Education of the County of Marshall ("Respondent") brought suit against Myra Kay Reilley, Administrator of the Estate of Francis E. Reilley, and Myra Kay Reilley, individually, ("Petitioners") for alleged flood damages caused to Respondent's property as a result of the construction of a road and bridge which Respondent maintained impeded the flow of Little Grave Creek in Glen Dale, West Virginia. The matter proceeded to a jury trial and Petitioners were found to be liable to Respondent for $122,861.79 in damages, plus pre- and post- judgment interest, for multiple flooding events. Based upon that jury verdict, the circuit court granted injunctive relief which required Petitioners to remove the bridge and road. Petitioners then appealed to this Court, raising four issues: 1) the complaint in the action was not timely served; 2) damages for two flood events were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; 3) the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find that construction of the road and bridge was the proximate cause of Respondent's damages; and 4) the circuit court's order granting injunctive relief failed to contain appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

After review of the trial transcript and evidence, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and all other matters of record, we affirm on the issues of service of process and proximate cause, and we reverse and remand on the statute of limitations issue and on the granting of injunctive relief.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1997, Petitioner's husband, Frances E. Reilley, purchased a 198-acre tract of land located along Little Grave Creek in Glen Dale, West Virginia.¹ The access to the property is from State Route 2 and along a right of way which straddles the southern boundary of property owned by Respondent. Respondent's property is comprised of 37 acres and is the site of John Marshall High School and its attendant baseball field. The bulk of Petitioners’ property is located on the east side of Little Grave Creek and Respondent's property is located on the west side. Thus, Little Grave Creek is the eastern boundary of the Respondent's property and is also the western boundary of the Petitioners’ property.

Sometime in 1984, Francis Reilley, with the assistance of his then co-owner brothers and others, constructed an embankment on the right of way along the southern boundary of Respondent's property for an elevated roadway. At the same time, a bridge was constructed across Little Grave Creek to Petitioners’ 198-acre tract. Once completed, these improvements became known as Duck Lane.

There were no issues with the construction of Duck Lane until the remnants of Hurricane Ivan passed through the Upper Ohio River Valley on September 17, 2004, causing a large amount of rain to fall in Marshall County. On that date, and for the first time since construction of Duck Lane, Little Grave Creek overflowed its banks and flooded the nearby baseball field. This marked the first of a number of flooding events that occurred on February 1, 2008, June 17, 2009, and June 5, 2010, each causing damages to Respondent's baseball field.

On September 2, 2010, Respondent brought suit against Mr. Reilley alleging multiple causes of action – continuing trespass, interference with riparian rights, nuisance at law, and private nuisance. Respondent also sought an injunction to require Mr. Reilley to abate the nuisance by removing Duck Lane. The summons was issued on January 28, 2011, and Mr. Reilley was personally served with the summons and complaint that day, 148 days after the complaint was filed. Mr. Reilley moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was not served within 120 days of filing as required by Rule 4(k) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Mr. Reilley also moved to dismiss the allegations regarding the first two flood events – September 17, 2004 and February 1, 2008² – on the ground that they fell outside the applicable statute of limitations.

A series of events then took place which ultimately resulted in the circuit court not ruling on this motion until February 8, 2018.³ At that time, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that " ‘good cause’ clearly exists to allow [Respondent] more than one hundred and twenty (120) days from the filing of the Complaint" to serve Mr. Reilley. As to the issue of the 2004 and 2008 flood events being outside the applicable statute of limitations, the circuit court found:

While [Petitioners’] position may very well be spot-on correct relative to damages alleged to have resulted from the 2004 and 2008 flooding episodes, it is this Court's position that the parties should be given further opportunity for discovery to develop the facts. When discovery has sufficiently produced such facts, [Petitioners] may reach the same issues by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Thereafter, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Petitioners renewed their argument that Respondent's claims relating to the September 17, 2004 and February 1, 2008, flooding events were filed outside the statute of limitations and were time-barred. According to the appendix record, no written order was ever entered on the dispositive motions but the circuit court ruled on the record that all dispositive motions were denied.

The matter then proceeded to a jury trial that lasted three days. Prior to deliberations, the parties stipulated as to the damages caused to Respondent's property as a result of the separate flooding events: September 17, 2004 - $54,992.72; February 1, 2008 - $7,555.97; June 17, 2009 - $58,038.65; and, June 5, 2010 - $2,274.45. As noted in the judgment order dated April 16, 2019, at the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Petitioners liable for all four flooding events. Thereafter, Petitioners filed motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or to amend the judgment order. The circuit court denied the motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial and amended the judgment order with regard to the calculation of pre-judgment interest.

Over a year following trial, in an order containing no findings of fact or conclusions of law, the circuit court granted Respondent injunctive relief requiring Petitioners to remove the embankment and bridge. Petitioners then filed this appeal.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As there are multiple issues arising from divergent procedural postures, we set forth the standards of review applicable to each of the issues raised in the appeal. The circuit court's denial of Petitioners’ motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 4(k) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is reviewed under an abuse of discretion. See Syllabus Point 4, Burgess v. Porterfield , 196 W. Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996) ("This Court reviews the circuit court's final order and ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard. We review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. ").

A denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. "This Court reviews de novo the denial of a motion for summary judgment, where such a ruling is properly reviewable by this Court." Syllabus Point 1, Findley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 213 W. Va. 80, 576 S.E.2d 807 (2002). Likewise, the denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law is also reviewed de novo. "The appellate standard of review for an order granting or denying a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law after trial pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] is de novo. " Syllabus Point 1, Fredeking v. Tyler , 224 W. Va. 1, 680 S.E.2d 16 (2009) (brackets in original).

Denial of motions for new trial are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard:

[I]t is well-established that " ‘[a]lthough the ruling of a trial court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is entitled to great respect and weight, the trial court's ruling will be reversed on appeal when it is clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence.’ Syllabus point 4, Sanders v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 159 W.Va. 621, 225 S.E.2d 218 (1976)." Syllabus Point 3, Carpenter v. Luke, 225 W.Va. 35, 689 S.E.2d 247 (2009). In other words, our standard of review for a trial court's decision regarding a motion for a new trial is abuse of discretion. Marsch v. American Elec. Power Co., 207 W.Va. 174, 180, 530 S.E.2d 173, 179 (1999).

MacDonald v. City Hosp., Inc. , 227 W. Va. 707, 715, 715 S.E.2d 405, 413 (2011).

Finally, we review a circuit court's order granting injunctive relief under the following standard of review:

In reviewing objections to the findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting the granting or the denial of a temporary or preliminary injunction, we will apply a three-pronged deferential standard of review. We review the final order granting or denying the temporary injunction and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and we review questions of law de novo.

Syllabus Point 1, Bansbach v. Harbin , 229 W. Va. 287, 728 S.E.2d 533 (2012).

III. ANALYSIS

Having set forth the applicable standards of review, we now turn to each issue raised in this appeal.

A. Untimely Service of Complaint

We first...