STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

FILED 

December 7, 2015 Brenda S. Dotson, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

vs) No. 15-0296 (Kanawha County 14-C-2012) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Chesley Cottrell Hamilton and Kathy Cottrell, 

Defendants Below, Respondents 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Brenda S. Dotson, pro se, appeals the January 29, 2015, order of the Circuit 

Court of Kanawha County dismissing her civil action against respondents, in which petitioner 

sought repayment of an alleged debt. Respondent Chesley Cottrell Hamilton, pro se, and 

Respondent Kathy Cottrell, pro se, each filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order. 

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. This case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the 

Rules of Appellate Procedure and is appropriate for a memorandum decision rather than an 

opinion. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed, in part, and 

reversed, in part, and this case is remanded with directions that the circuit court address 

petitioner’s claim that she is entitled to repayment of the loan to Respondent Hamilton in the 

amount of $5,500. 

According to the parties’ pleadings, Respondent Cottrell and Respondent Hamilton are 

mother and daughter. In 2003, Respondent Hamilton purchased a mobile home. Because 

Respondent Hamilton was only eighteen years old at the time, both Respondent Hamilton and her 

mother, Respondent Cottrell, were listed as the mobile home’s owners. 

From 2009 to 2014, Respondent Hamilton was married to petitioner’s son. At the time of 

the marriage, Respondent Hamilton rented property from her grandparents, to which the mobile 

home could be moved. According to petitioner, Respondent Hamilton borrowed $5,500 from her 

to pay for the cost of moving the home to her grandparents’ property. Respondent Hamilton 

countered that it was petitioner’s son (Respondent Hamilton’s former husband), who asked to be 

loaned $5,500 with the promise that it would be repaid. In their pleadings, no party alleged that the 

mobile home constituted marital property or that the alleged loan was a joint debt belonging to 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

both Respondent Hamilton and petitioner’s son. 

On November 12, 2014, petitioner filed a complaint against Respondent Hamilton and 

Respondent Cottrell in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County seeking repayment of the $5,500 

expended in moving the mobile home. Respondent Hamilton and Respondent Cottrell each filed 

an answer on December 5, 2015. On January 29, 2015, the circuit court dismissed petitioner’s civil 

action, finding that adjudication of her claim belonged to the Family Court of Kanawha County 

because it was unclear as to whether the mobile home constituted marital property and whether the 

alleged loan was a joint debt of both Respondent Hamilton and petitioner’s son. 

As part of its dismissal order, the circuit court remanded the case to the family court with 

directions for that court to make a determination as to whether it had jurisdiction over petitioner’s 

claim. In an order entered on February 5, 2015, that petitioner does not appeal, the family court 

determined that it did not have jurisdiction over her claim and dismissed her case without 

prejudice. 

Petitioner now appeals the circuit court’s January 29, 2015, dismissal of her civil action. As 

Petitioner’s complaint was not dismissed until after Respondent Hamilton and Respondent Cottrell 

filed their answers, we construe the dismissal as a judgment on the pleadings. “Appellate review of 

a circuit court’s order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is de novo.” Syl. Pt. 1, 

Brown v. Fluharty, 231 W.Va. 613, 748 S.E.2d 809, 810 (2013) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted). Furthermore, the factual allegations contained in petitioner’s complaint are taken as true. 

Id. at 615, 748 S.E.2d at 811. Petitioner asserts that the circuit court erred in dismissing her action 

because the mobile home was not the marital property of Respondent Hamilton and petitioner’s 

son. Addressing the merits of petitioner’s claim, respondents assert that the dismissal order in their 

favor should be affirmed because the debt owed to petitioner belongs to her son. 

First, we affirm the dismissal order as to Respondent Cottrell, but not on the ground relied 

upon by the circuit court. We are “not wed . . . to the lower court’s rationale, but may rule on any 

alternate ground manifest in the record.” Conrad v. ARA Szabo, 198 W.Va. 362, 369, 480 S.E.2d 

801, 808 (1996). It is manifest from the parties’ pleadings, including petitioner’s complaint, that 

petitioner sued Respondent Cottrell only as the co-owner of the mobile home and that petitioner 

wants to be repaid the $5,500 she allegedly loaned to Respondent Hamilton to move the home to 

Respondent Hamilton’s grandparents’ property in 2009. Petitioner does not dispute that she 

contributed no funds toward the mobile home’s purchase in 2003; therefore, petitioner has no 

claim against Respondent Cottrell. We uphold the dismissal of Respondent Cottrell on that ground. 

Second, we find error in the dismissal of Respondent Hamilton. The circuit court 

determined that the claim’s adjudication belonged to the family court because Respondent 

Hamilton and petitioner’s son were married from 2009 to 2014. See W.Va. Code § 51-2A-2(a)(15) 

(family court has jurisdiction over all proceedings with regard to equitable distribution of property 

in divorce). However, West Virginia Code § 51-2A-2(e) provides that the family court is a court of 

limited jurisdiction and “a court of record only for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in the 

matters for which the jurisdiction of the family court is specifically authorized[.]” (emphasis 

added) The circuit court is West Virginia’s court of general jurisdiction having the authority to 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

adjudicate “all matters at law where the amount in controversy, excluding interest, exceeds two 

thousand five hundred dollars.” W.Va. Code § 51-2-2(b); see W.Va. Const. art. 8, § 6. 

The circuit court found that it was unclear as to whether the mobile home constituted marital 

property of Respondent Hamilton and petitioner’s son and whether the alleged loan was a joint 

debt of both Respondent Hamilton and petitioner’s son. However, the circuit court’s finding is 

contrary to the pleadings in that no party alleged that the mobile home was marital property or that 

the alleged loan was a marital debt. Also, in a subsequent order entered by the family court, that 

court determined that it did not have jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim and dismissed her case 

without prejudice. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal order as to Respondent Hamilton and 

remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum 

decision. 

For the foregoing reasons, we (1) affirm the circuit court’s January 29, 2015, order with 

regard to the dismissal of Respondent Cottrell; (2) reverse the circuit court’s order with regard to 

the dismissal of Respondent Hamilton; and (3) remand the case with directions that the circuit 

court address petitioner’s claim that she is entitled to repayment of the loan to Respondent 

Hamilton in the amount of $5,500. 

Affirmed, in part, Reversed, in part, and 

Remanded with Directions. 

ISSUED: December 7, 2015 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3