Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia

  Argument Docket  
                 Tuesday, March 25, 2003

West Virginia University College of Law
Morgantown, West Virginia 

1.   LONGWELL, et al. v. BD. of ED. of MARSHALL COUNTY , No. 30987. This appeal arises from a 12(b)(6) dismissal of an action by the Circuit Court of Marshall County. Appellants are citizens who contend that the Marshall County Board of Education is in violation of West Virginia Code 7-4-1 by routinely employing private attorneys to handle its legal affairs, rather than utilizing the services of the county prosecuting attorney. Appellants argue that the Board is obliged to make every effort to conserve county funds, and its exclusive use of private counsel runs afoul of its duty to conserve the public fisc. Appellee responds that the lower court correctly determined, as a matter of law, that county boards of education are empowered to employ private counsel under West Virginia Code 18-5-13(l).

Appellants are represented by Dan Guida of Guida Law Offices in Weirton. Appellee is represented by Thomas B. Miller of Schrader, Byrd & Companion, PLLC, in Wheeling.

2.  HANNAH, et al. v. HEETER, et al., No. 30962. This is a certified question arising from the Circuit Court of Logan County in the context of a civil action for sexual harassment and sexual discrimination, where an audio tape of conversations at issue was destroyed, and defendants in the civil action filed a counterclaim alleging negligent and intentional spoliation of evidence. The circuit court subsequently certified the following questions of law: "(1) Whether West Virginia recognizes spoliation of evidence as a stand-alone tort if and when negligently done by a party to a civil action and/or those acting in concert with parties to the civil action? (2) Whether West Virginia recognizes spoliation of evidence as a stand-alone tort if and when willfully and purposefully done by a party to a civil action and/or those acting in concert with parties to a civil action?" The circuit court answered the questions in the negative, and dismissed the counterclaims for spoliation of evidence. Defendants below urge the Court to recognize causes of action for both intentional and negligent spoliation of evidence, which may be alleged against both parties and non-parties, depending on the circumstances of the case. Plaintiffs below respond that the certified question is not properly before the Court because the factual record is imprecise and highly disputed, and the legal issue presented does not substantially control the case. Plaintiffs below further argue that the circuit court correctly answered the certified questions, and that this is not a proper case for the Court to resolve the complex question of whether spoliation of evidence should be recognized as an independent cause of action.

3.  DELAWARE CWC LIQUIDATION CORP., et al. v. MARTIN , No. 30985 and    GARLETTS et al. v. AITCHESON, No. 31113. These two consolidated cases involve the assignment of legal malpractice claims. In the Martin case, the Circuit Court of Putnam County certified the following question: "Is the assignment of a legal malpractice claim contrary to public policy of the State of West Virginia and therefore void as a matter of law?" The circuit court answered the question in the negative. Defendant below contends that the circuit court erred because assignment of a legal malpractice claim to the opposing party in an underlying dispute is contrary to public policy. Plaintiffs below respond that the circuit court was correct, and that an absolute bar to assignment of legal malpractice claims is contrary to public policy. In the Aitcheson case, the Circuit Court of Berkeley County certified the following questions: "(1) Should courts determine the validity of the assignment of a legal malpractice claim on a case-by-case basis? (2) If an attorney’s client who is sued for malicious prosecution settles with the plaintiff under terms in which the client receives a full release from the malicious prosecution claim in exchange for an assignment to the plaintiff of legal malpractice claims against the client’s attorney who filed the prior suit, is the assignment void as against public policy of the State of West Virginia." The circuit court answered the first question in affirmatively, and the second question negatively; which was in favor of the plaintiffs below, who sought to proceed on a legal malpractice claim assigned to them pursuant to a prior settlement agreement with another party.

  4.  IN RE: WILLIAMS et al. v. GMAC MORTGAGE, et al., No. 30902. This case involves a certified question from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, arising from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action: "Does the trustee in bankruptcy, given the status of bona fide purchaser without notice by federal bankruptcy law, prevail over the holder of a deed of trust recorded but improperly acknowledged?"