Wayne Patterson v. Danaya Steiner

Citation: Not availableDocket: 11-1666

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; March 7, 2013; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioner Wayne Patterson, representing himself, appealed the circuit court's August 22, 2011 order that dismissed his petition for summary relief regarding wrongful occupation of rental property located at 825 Barrett Drive, South Charleston, West Virginia. The respondents, Danaya Steiner (aka Danaya Reid), Joe Steiner, and Jaime T. Adkins, did not respond. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case without oral argument and found no substantial legal questions or prejudicial errors.

Patterson claimed ownership of the property and alleged unauthorized occupation and damage by the respondents. The respondents had moved the case to circuit court, where a hearing took place on August 4, 2011. The circuit court's ruling stated that West Virginia Code 55-3A-1, et seq. provides remedies for wrongful occupation, leading to the dismissal of Patterson's petition with prejudice. The court allowed Patterson, as Administrator of the Estate of Josephine Patterson, access to inspect the premises once, with arrangements through the respondents' counsel, potentially with law enforcement oversight.

Furthermore, the court ordered the respondents to grant Patterson access to a storage facility containing the decedent’s belongings and to assign their rental contract for the facility to him, making him responsible for future rental payments. The court ruled that Patterson must not interfere with utility services contracted by the respondents, who remain responsible for those payments. The respondents were permitted to stay in the property until an agreement regarding occupancy is reached among all heirs or further court orders are issued.

The court determined that Patterson, as Administrator, was not entitled to title or possession of the property, as it descended to the decedent's heirs, including Patterson himself and his siblings. The respondents were legally represented during the proceedings.

An affidavit by Alzerita Murlin states that Danaya and Joe Steiner, relatives of Josephine Patterson’s heirs, were authorized to reside at the property in question. Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration, which the circuit court denied on August 22 and November 3, 2011. The circuit court indicated that the petitioner could refile as an "owner" of the property at 825 Barrett Drive if he believed that to be true. The court's dismissal of the petitioner’s case is reviewed de novo, and the petitioner claims he is a co-owner and fulfilled the requirements for summary relief under West Virginia Code 55-3A-1. 

Despite assuming that the petitioner could petition as an heir rather than the administrator, the circuit court concluded he could not prove his case. The law allows a landlord to pursue eviction when a tenant wrongfully occupies the property or damages it. The court found the respondents were lawfully occupying the premises at the invitation of two heirs and had not likely caused damage, as they treated the personal property with care. 

Petitioner later filed a motion for judgment due to respondents' failure to respond to his appeal; however, the court held that a lack of response does not automatically warrant a ruling in favor of the petitioner. The court emphasized that it is not obligated to accept a confession of error without a proper analysis. The circuit court determined that the respondents had removed the decedent's property to a secured storage facility before the action commenced. Ultimately, the court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the petition for summary relief regarding wrongful occupation. The decision was issued on March 8, 2013, and affirmed by all justices.