Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yeager v. Cox

Supreme Court of West Virginia

May 31, 2019

Charles Yeager, Respondent Below, Petitioner
v.
Sandra Cox, Petitioner Below, Respondent

          Wirt County 16-C-AP-2

          MEMORANDUM DECISION

         Petitioner Charles Yeager, pro se, appeals the May 16, 2017, order of the Circuit Court of Wirt County directing petitioner to vacate a mobile home located at Lot #42, 625 Newark Acres, by 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2017, and awarding Respondent Sandra Cox $915 in back rent, plus $85 in court costs, at 7% interest per year. Respondent, pro se, filed a response.

         The Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal.[1] The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, 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 affirming the circuit court's orders is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

         Respondent initiated a proceeding in the Magistrate Court of Wirt County to evict petitioner from a mobile home located at Lot #42, 625 Newark Acres, for petitioner's alleged failure to make monthly payments. Following the magistrate court's judgment in respondent's favor, petitioner appealed to the Circuit Court of Wirt County which held a trial de novo on September 22, 2016. The parties appeared for the September 22, 2016, bench trial. Melinda Ashby, respondent's daughter, also appeared because she manages the mobile home rental. Petitioner and Ms. Ashby both provided sworn testimony. While no documents were formally admitted into evidence, petitioner and Ms. Ashby each referred to various documents in support of the parties' respective positions. Under questioning from the circuit court, petitioner admitted that he was "habitually late making payments."

         In a May 16, 2017, order, the circuit court made the following findings:

1. The [parties] entered into an agreement to purchase certain real and personal property in the form of a lot occupied by a mobile home owned by [respondent] for a total of $29, 000 or $30, 000 payable at $305.00 per month.[2]
2.At the time of the filing of [respondent's petition in the magistrate court, ] [petitioner] was in arrears in the amount of $915.00.
3.[Petitioner] has breached the agreement of the parties and [respondent] is entitled to possession of the property free of any claims by [petitioner].
5. Due to the differences between the parties, it would be in the best interest of both parties to terminate the tenancy. Neither party keeps adequate records. Therefore, it would be difficult to ascertain the exact amount paid and owed by [petitioner] over the approximate eight or nine years of the tenancy.

Accordingly, the circuit court ordered petitioner to vacate the mobile home located at Lot #42, 625 Newark Acres, by 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2017, and awarded respondent $915 in back rent, plus $85 in court costs, at 7% interest per year.

         Petitioner now appeals the circuit court's May 16, 2017, order awarding respondent a total of $1000 in back rent and court costs, plus interest.[3] We apply the standard for reviewing a judgment entered following a bench trial:

In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court made after a bench trial, a two-pronged deferential standard of review is applied. The final order and the ultimate disposition are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and the circuit court's underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.

Syl. Pt. 1, Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank in Fairmont, 198 W.Va. 329, 480 S.E.2d 538 (1996).

         On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court failed to consider the documents that he alleges supported his claim that he purchased the mobile home and lot for a total of $29, 000. While no documents were formally admitted into evidence by the pro se parties, the docket sheet reflects that the parties' "exhibits" were in the circuit court's possession before being forwarded to the circuit clerk. Moreover, as stated in the circuit court's May 16, 2017, order, the court "review[ed] the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.