Charles Rocheleau owned 160 acres of land in Jefferson County, West Virginia, which included a farmhouse built in the 1800s. In 2006, Douglas Stolipher purchased the land and farmhouse from Rocheleau for \($1\) million contingent on Rocheleau’s life estate in the farmhouse and the surrounding five acres of land.
The deed provided that “[Decedent], while residing in the [farmhouse], may, for his necessity or convenience, repair, improve, or alter the farmhouse’s …
interior or exterior and will keep [petitioner] informed of said improvement” and that “[decedent] shall bear all costs of the [farmhouse] and surrounding area, including but not limited to … repair and maintenance.”
Rocheleau died in January 2014. Rocheleau’s estate handed the property to Stolipher in accordance with the 2006 agreement. Stolipher had the farm inspected later that year. In his report, the inspector found “significant deterioration in the [farmhouse] which could have been avoided with proper maintenance … beyond normal aging and use.”
In October 2014, Stolipher filed an action against Rocheleau’s estate for permissive waste and breach of contract. Stolipher alleged that Rocheleau’s neglect caused the property to fall into disrepair, lowering its value and causing waste. Following discovery, the estate filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that because Stolipher did not establish the condition of the property in 2006, there was no ability to measure if waste had occurred. The district court granted the defendant’s motion and Stolipher timely appealed.
CHIEF JUSTICE KETCHUM Petitioner raises four assignments of error on appeal. Petitioner first argues that the circuit court erred by granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment where respondent did not properly support that motion. Specifically, petitioner claims that the circuit court wrongfully relied upon respondent’s 200 unauthenticated photographs of the farmhouse in rendering its decision.
Here, respondent carried its burden of proof by entering evidence showing that decedent had both repaired and improved the farmhouse during decedent’s life tenancy, and by pointing to the absence of evidence supporting petitioner’s case. Consequently, the burden of proof switched to petitioner to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in support of his claim of waste. However, as the circuit court correctly found, “nothing in [petitioner’s] evidence or arguments shows the state of the property [in 2006].” Instead, the only evidence petitioner presented to the court was his inspector’s 2014 report. However, that report did not show the condition of the farmhouse between August of 2006 and April of 2014, or prove that the deterioration noted by the inspector had not already occurred as of August of 2006. Accordingly, the circuit court correctly found that petitioner’s case was simply too speculative to prove that decedent permissively committed waste during the relevant time period. Therefore, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment in favor of respondent due to petitioner’s failure to raise any genuine issue of material fact.
Petitioner also argues that, in rendering its decision, the circuit court improperly relied upon the 200 unauthenticated photographs submitted with respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The transcript of the hearing in this matter reveals that the circuit court did review the 200 photographs and referred to some of them during the hearing. However, the photographs are specifically mentioned only once in the order on appeal, as follows:
“In April 2014, [respondent] turned possession of the residential structure over to [petitioner] in a ‘broom clean’ manner as evidence[d] by the photographs submitted by [respondent].” This finding is not relevant to the basis of the circuit court’s award of summary judgment to respondent: that petitioner’s case was unsupported by the evidence and, therefore, raised no genuine issue of material fact. Likewise, any of the circuit court’s other findings that could potentially be attributed to the court’s review of the photographs also are not relevant to the court’s decision in this matter. Thus, we cannot say that the circuit court committed error in this regard.
Petitioner next argues that the circuit court erred where the order on appeal includes “very few” findings of fact and where some of those findings are not supported by the evidence. Having carefully and fully reviewed the circuit court’s order and the record on appeal, we reject petitioner’s assertion that the circuit court made insufficient findings to support its ultimate conclusion that petitioner’s case was too speculative to survive a motion for summary judgment.
Furthermore, we find that the circuit court made sufficient findings and conclusions to permit meaningful appellate review in this case. As for petitioner’s claim that some of the circuit court’s findings were not supported by the evidence, we find that the circuit court’s reason for granting summary judgment—that petitioner’s case was too speculative to raise a genuine issue of material fact—was clearly supported by the evidence in this case. Hence, we find no error regarding the number or accuracy of the circuit court’s findings.
Petitioner’s third assignment of error is that genuine issues of material fact existed which the court should have considered after hearing all the evidence at trial. We have said, “[a] party who moves for summary judgment has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact and any doubt as to the existence of such issue is resolved against the movant for such judgment.” However, in this case, no genuine issues of material fact remained for trial because there was no dispute as to the speculative nature of petitioner’s case. Accordingly, we find no error.
Petitioner’s fourth and final assignment of error is that the circuit court erred in failing to recognize the covenant in the 2006 deed which provided that decedent “shall bear all of the costs of the homestead and the surrounding area, including but not limited to … repair and maintenance.” Petitioner claims that this covenant created a higher standard of care and maintenance for the farmhouse during decedent’s life estate. Petitioner further asserts that, by refusing to recognize the covenant, the circuit court rendered it a nullity and denied petitioner the benefit of his bargain. This assignment of error fails for the same reason that petitioner’s other assignments of error fail, that is, even if decedent was subject to a higher standard of care, petitioner could not prove decedent did not meet that higher standard because petitioner did not establish a baseline regarding the condition of the house when he purchased it in 2006. As such, we find no error.
CRITICAL THINKING:
Why is it necessary for Stolipher to have ascertained the condition of the property to be able to measure waste? Do you think any other kind of evidence would be sufficient to overcome this deficit in Stolipher’s claim?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING:
How much weight would you put on the inspector’s report that “significant deterioration in the [farmhouse] which could have been avoided with proper maintenance … beyond normal aging and use” had occurred? If the inspector’s report was verified to be completely accurate, do you think the court’s decision should change in favor of Stolipher? Explain your reasoning.