Robert and Jane Knight v. Ronald J. Jr. and Rebecca Lynn Hubbard

Citation: Not availableDocket: 12-1159

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; September 3, 2013; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioners Robert Knight, Jane Knight, Dorothy Lilly, Roscoe Knight, Edna Knight, Roger D. Knight, Roger L. Knight, and Hazel Knight Spencer appealed a decision from the Circuit Court of Monroe County that denied their petition to remove a cloud on title and their complaint for declaratory judgment, with the order dated August 23, 2012. The respondents, Ronald J. Hubbard Jr. and Rebecca Lynn Hubbard, supported the circuit court's ruling. Petitioners claimed the court erred in denying their request to eject the respondents from the shared property.

The court deemed the issues adequately presented without the need for oral argument and found no substantial legal questions or prejudicial errors in the case. The petitioners, who are siblings and spouses, jointly own the 65-acre property, having acquired it from their parents and another sibling. Historical transfers of property interests have established the current ownership structure, which includes both petitioners and respondents as tenants in common.

In November 2009, the petitioners filed their action, asserting that the respondents' use of the property was unlawful. After a bench trial in September 2010, the circuit court ruled that the respondents' use was lawful and denied the petitioners any damages. The appeal was subjected to a deferential review standard for findings from the bench trial, assessing for abuse of discretion and clearly erroneous factual findings, while legal questions received de novo review. The relevant West Virginia statutory provision requires that a tenant in common must prove actual ouster or a total denial of their rights to succeed in an action against a cotenant.

Petitioners claim the circuit court erred in not ejecting respondents from a property, presenting three main arguments. First, they contend that the court wrongly determined that respondents used the property through actions permissible for all tenants in common. Petitioners assert that respondents claimed exclusive ownership of a specific portion, excluding co-tenants without consent, and challenge the legitimacy of respondents’ acquisition from William Knight, citing legal precedent that one co-tenant cannot convey a distinct portion of a common estate. However, the court found no abuse of discretion, noting petitioners failed to demonstrate that respondents ousted them or denied them access to the property. Testimonies indicated minimal involvement from petitioners, with one expressing discomfort without specific reasons and another acknowledging alternative access despite a backhoe's presence.

Second, petitioners argue that respondents' actions, including constructing a barn and home and posting "no trespassing" signs, rendered their property interest unmarketable. The court again found no abuse of discretion, stating petitioners did not meet their burden of proof under West Virginia Code 55-4-15 to show ouster or total denial of rights. No evidence was presented to indicate a diminished property value or that respondents completely denied petitioners' rights.

Lastly, petitioners challenge the court's acceptance of unilateral partitioning in a tenancy in common, insisting that respondents lacked authority to designate a specific tract from the common property. They emphasize their right to access the entire estate. The court upheld its findings, stating that respondents did not threaten or obstruct petitioners from accessing the property. Overall, the circuit court's decisions were supported by the record, showing no abuse of discretion in any of the petitioners' claims.

Ouster of a tenant in common requires clear evidence of wrongful possession by a co-tenant, characterized by open, continued, and notorious actions that indicate a denial of the co-tenant's title and an assertion of an adverse right. Such conduct must be known to the co-tenant and cannot be presumed. No prior requests were made by any party for another to cease activities on the property. The circuit court’s findings and conclusions regarding the appeal have been reviewed and adopted, affirming the decision. A copy of the circuit court’s final order will be attached to the memorandum decision. The ruling was issued on September 3, 2013, with concurrence from several justices.