1.    “The appellate standard of review for the granting of a motion for [judgment as a matter of law] pursuant to Rule 50 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo. On appeal, this court, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant party, will sustain the granting of [judgment as a matter of law] when only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict can be reached. But if reasonable minds could differ as to the importance and sufficiency of the evidence, a circuit court's ruling granting [judgment as a matter of law] will be reversed.” Syllabus point 3, Brannon v. Riffle, 197 W. Va. 97, 475 S.E.2d 97 (1996).

        2.    “A trial court's evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syllabus point 4, State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W. Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998).

        3.    “Where an offer of evidence is made under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the trial court, pursuant to Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, is to determine its admissibility. Before admitting the evidence, the trial court should conduct an in camera hearing as stated in State v. Dolin, 176 W. Va. 688, 347 S.E.2d 208 (1986). After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct occurred and that the defendant committed the acts. If the trial court does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct was committed or that the defendant was the actor, the evidence should be excluded under Rule 404(b). If a sufficient showing has been made, the trial court must then determine the relevancy of the evidence under Rules 401 and 402 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and conduct the balancing required under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. If the trial court is then satisfied that the Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible, it should instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which such evidence has been admitted. A limiting instruction should be given at the time the evidence is offered, and we recommend that it be repeated in the trial court's general charge to the jury at the conclusion of the evidence.” Syllabus point 2, State v. McGinnis, 193 W. Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994).

        4.    “Since the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no requirement that an answer . . . be verified.” Syllabus point 2, in part, M. W. Kellogg Co. v. Concrete Accessories Corp., 157 W. Va. 763, 204 S.E.2d 61 (1974).

Per Curiam:

        Vera Stewart and Ron Stewart, appellants/plaintiffs below (hereinafter referred to as “the Stewarts'),See footnote 1 ¹ appealed the ruling by the Circuit Court of Cabell County granting judgment to Dennis Johnson, appellee/defendant below (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Johnson”).See footnote 2 ² The Stewarts contend in this appeal that the circuit court committed error by granting judgment as a matter of law to Mr. Johnson and in denying the Stewarts' wrongful eviction claim. The Stewarts also assign error to several evidentiary rulings made by the circuit court. Based upon the parties' arguments on appeal, the record designated for appellate review, and the pertinent authorities, we reverse the decision of the Circuit Court of Cabell County.

        The landlord-tenant relationship between the Stewarts and Mr. Johnson came to an end in February, 1999. During this time period, Mr. Johnson learned that Mr. Stewart had pawned some equipment owned by Mr. Johnson. During oral argument, Mr. Stewart's counsel acknowledged that Mr. Stewart pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge involving stolen property. While this Court does not condone Mr. Stewart's conduct in unlawfully stealing the Johnsons' property, theft is not the issue before this Court. The issues before this Court relate to the Stewarts' wrongful eviction claim.

        On the evening of February 4, 1999, the Stewarts returned home and found a note on their door. The note read:

            I got a warrant for your arrest for selling & pawning my tools. You need to vacate my premises no later than tomorrow.

The note bore a signature that was alleged to be that of Mr. Johnson.

        The following morning, February 5, 1999, an associate of Mr. Johnson named Lou Porter came to the Stewarts' home. Thereafter, the Stewarts were told to leave the premises by noon that day. The Stewarts left their apartment to obtain a truck to move their belongings. When the Stewarts returned home, they found that all of their belongings had been removed from their apartment.

        The Stewarts subsequently filed a complaint in circuit court seeking damages on the theory of wrongful eviction.See footnote 3 ³ On March 14, 2000, a jury was empaneled to hear the case. At the conclusion of the Stewarts' case-in-chief, the trial court granted judgment as a matter of law to Mr. Johnson.See footnote 4 ⁴ It is from this proceeding that the Stewarts now appeal.

            The appellate standard of review for the granting of a motion for [judgment as a matter of law] pursuant to Rule 50 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo. On appeal, this court, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant party, will sustain the granting of [judgment as a matter of law] when only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict can be reached. But if reasonable minds could differ as to the importance and sufficiency of the evidence, a circuit court's ruling granting [judgment as a matter of law] will be reversed.

In this regard, we have long held that

                    [u]pon a motion [for judgment as a matter of law] for the defendant, every reasonable and legitimate inference fairly arising from the testimony, when considered in its entirety, must be indulged in favorably to plaintiff; and the court must assume as true those facts which the jury may properly find under the evidence.
Syl. pt. 5, Nichols v. Raleigh-Wyoming Coal Co., 112 W. Va. 85, 163 S.E. 767 (1932). See Syl. pt. 1, Jividen v. Legg, 161 W. Va. 769, 245 S.E.2d 835 (1978). Furthermore, “[a] trial court's evidentiary rulings, as well as its application of the Rules of Evidence, are subject to review under an abuse of discretion standard.” Syl. pt. 4, State v. Rodoussakis, 204 W. Va. 58, 511 S.E.2d 469 (1998).

        Within these standards, we turn to the issues presented on appeal.

        Where, as here, there exists a month-to-month tenancy, W. Va. Code § 37-6-5 (1997) requires a landlord provide notice equal to a full period of the tenancy.See footnote 10 ¹⁰ See Elkins Nat'l. Bank v. Nefflen, 118 W. Va. 29, 188 S.E. 750 (1936) (month-to-month tenancy requires one month notice of termination). Through the testimony of the Stewarts and Mr. Johnson, it was shown that the oral tenancy agreement between the parties was indefinite in duration. We have held that the length of a tenancy indefinite in duration may be determined by the terms of the rent payment. See Hans Watts Realty Co. v. Nash Huntington Sales Co., 107 W. Va. 80, 84, 147 S.E. 282, 284 (1929) (“[W]e are of opinion that the rental periods should be taken as the criterion, in the absence of other evidence of a different intention, in determining whether or not the tenancy is from year to year or month to month[.]”). The evidence presented by the Stewarts established that they paid Mr. Johnson $350 a month for rent, through work performed by Mr. Stewart for Mr. Johnson.See footnote 11 ¹¹ It was further shown that Mr. Johnson did not provide the Stewarts with notice equal to a full period of the tenancy (one month) before evicting them.See footnote 12 ¹²

To the extent that the Stewarts presented evidence showing that a month-to-month tenancy existed with Mr. Johnson, and that Mr. Johnson evicted them without providing notice equal to a full period of the tenancy, it was incumbent upon Mr. Johnson to put on evidence to refute the Stewarts' contentions. We observed in Bluefield Supply Co. v. Frankel's Appliances, Inc., 149 W.Va. 622, 635, 142 S.E.2d 898, 907 (1965):

            When the plaintiff by its evidence in chief has established a prima facie case in support of its claim . . . the burden of going forward with the evidence . . . shifted to the defendant. . . . The burden of proof to establish the claim of the plaintiff, however, which unlike the burden of going forward with the evidence does not shift, rested upon the plaintiff who is required to establish its claim by a preponderance of all the evidence.

        In the instant case, the trial court halted further proceedings at the close of the Stewarts' case-in-chief. This was error. Only “[w]hen the plaintiff's evidence, considered in the light most favorable to him, fails to establish a prima facie right to recovery, [should] the trial court . . . [grant judgment as a matter of law] in favor of the defendant.” Syl. pt. 3, Roberts ex rel. Roberts v. Gale, 149 W. Va. 166, 139 S.E.2d 272 (1964). In this regard, “every reasonable and legitimate inference fairly arising from the testimony, when considered in its entirety, must be indulged in favorably to plaintiff; and the court must assume as true those facts which the jury may properly find under the evidence.” Syl. pt. 2, in part, Brannon v. Riffle, 197 W. Va. 97, 475 S.E.2d 97 (1996) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The trial court failed to apply the above standards in this matter. Therefore, we must reverse and remand the case for further proceedings.See footnote 13 ¹³

         1. Evidence of prior evictions. During the trial, Mr. Johnson stated during his opening statement that he had never unlawfully evicted anyone. The Stewarts sought to present evidence of alleged prior unlawful evictions by Mr. Johnson but the trial court ruled that such evidence was character evidence and therefore inadmissible under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. Rule 404(b) provides, in relevant part, that “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith.” The Stewarts argue that evidence of prior evictions by Mr. Johnson was admissible for impeachment purposes. Additionally, the Stewarts wanted to present evidence to illustrate why they were afraid of Mr. Johnson and to show a pattern of unlawful eviction as a normal business practice by Mr. Johnson.

        The record indicates that the trial court failed to perform the balancing test required for Rule 404(b) evidence. In Syllabus point 2 of State v. McGinnis, 193 W. Va. 147, 455 S.E.2d 516 (1994), we addressed the role of the trial court in assessing Rule 404(b) evidence:

            Where an offer of evidence is made under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, the trial court, pursuant to Rule 104(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence, is to determine its admissibility. Before admitting the evidence, the trial court should conduct an in camera hearing as stated in State v. Dolin, 176 W. Va. 688, 347 S.E.2d 208 (1986). After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the trial court must be satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct occurred and that the defendant committed the acts. If the trial court does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that the acts or conduct was committed or that the defendant was the actor, the evidence should be excluded under Rule 404(b). If a sufficient showing has been made, the trial court must then determine the relevancy of the evidence under Rules 401 and 402 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence and conduct the balancing required under Rule 403 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence. If the trial court is then satisfied that the Rule 404(b) evidence is admissible, it should instruct the jury on the limited purpose for which such evidence has been admitted. A limiting instruction should be given at the time the evidence is offered, and we recommend that it be repeated in the trial court's general charge to the jury at the conclusion of the evidence.

See Syl. pt. 11, Tudor v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 203 W. Va. 111, 506 S.E.2d 554 (1997).

        We will not determine in this appeal whether evidence of prior evictions by Mr. Johnson should be admitted. However, should the Stewarts again attempt to present evidence of other evictions by Mr. Johnson, the trial court must perform the balancing test required for 404(b) evidence when making its determination on the admissibility of such evidence.

         2. Impeachment through answers. The Stewarts sought to impeach testimony by Mr. Johnson through the answers he filed in both magistrate court and circuit court. Specifically, during the trial, Mr. Johnson stated he did not send Lou Porter to the Stewarts' apartment. However, in his answer to the circuit court complaint, Mr. Johnson admitted sending Lou Porter to the apartment. Further, during the trial, Mr. Johnson testified that he did not enter and remove property from the Stewarts' apartment. In his answer to the magistrate court complaint, though, Mr. Johnson indicated he did enter the apartment and removed property therefrom. The trial court excluded Mr. Johnson's circuit court answer on the grounds that the answer was not verified. Similarly, the magistrate court answer was not admitted because Mr. Johnson was asked to read only a highlighted portion of the answer to the jury.

        The basis for the trial court's ruling on both answers is not supported by law. This Court has held that “[s]ince the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no requirement that an answer . . . be verified.” Syl. pt. 2, in part, M. W. Kellogg Co. v. Concrete Accessories Corp., 157 W. Va. 763, 204 S.E.2d 61 (1974). See W.Va.R.Civ.P. 11(a) (Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit.”). Moreover, “[w]e spoke to the question of statements made in pleadings in Lotz v. Atamaniuk, 172 W. Va. 116, 120, 304 S.E.2d 20, 24 (1983), terming them 'judicial admissions', and said that '[a]lthough they are not conclusive in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties, they are admissible and may be given whatever weight the trier of fact deems appropriate.'” Moore v. Goode, 180 W. Va. 78, 86, 375 S.E.2d 549, 557 (1988). Therefore, in the instant case the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the circuit court answer.

        As to the issue of excluding the magistrate court answer because the Stewarts sought to introduce only part of it, Rule 106 of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence resolves this issue. Rule 106 provides “when a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.” Rule 106 is applicable where a party's utilization of a writing is “tantamount to the introduction of the [document] into evidence.” Rainey v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 784 F.2d 1523, 1529 n.11 (11 Cir. 1986). Therefore, reading into the record from a document would be the same as introducing that document for purposes of Rule 106.

        Should the trial court believe that reading only part of the answer would somehow be misleading, then the remedy is not to exclude such evidence. The remedy is to admit into evidence any other part of the answer that would provide a more accurate statement of events. See Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 172, 109 S. Ct. 439, 451, 102 L. Ed. 2d 445, 465 (1988) (“[W]hen one party has made use of a portion of a document, such that misunderstanding or distortion can be averted only through presentation of another portion, the material required for completeness is ipso facto relevant and therefore admissible under Rule 401 and 402.” (citations omitted)). It was therefore error for the trial court to exclude evidence from the magistrate court answer.

                                    Reversed and Remanded.

mining coal, but a tenant as respects his occupancy of the house; the two relations of employer and employee and landlord and tenant not being necessarily inconsistent with each other.”).

            [W]e met Dennis Johnson through some mutual friends of ours. I heard about him having a lot of work done to some of his property, and at the time we needed a place to stay, a home, me and my wife. I made a verbal arrangement that I was to work for him on his maintenance work, 350 a month. Anything over that was an hourly wage.