1

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHRISTOPHER R. STILES,

Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 23-ICA-82 (Cir. Ct. of Jefferson Cnty. No. CC-19-2021-C-177) 

ESTATE OF STANLEY E. STILES,

JOHN STEVEN STILES, JOYCE L. RAWN, 

MARY KATHERINE IAGER, AMY IAGER, 

E. WILLIAM IAGER, NATHAN IAGER, 

RACHEL B. ADAMS, MARY K. RAWN, 

ANNE L. RAWN, JOHN STEVEN STILES, JR.,

ADAM STILES, AND MICHAEL STILES,

Defendants Below, Respondents

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Christopher R. Stiles (“Petitioner Stiles”) appeals from the Circuit Court of 

Jefferson County’s February 5, 2023, order granting summary judgment in favor of the 

Respondents. The circuit court concluded that Petitioner Stiles’ complaint failed to show 

that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding his allegations that the decedent 

lacked testamentary capacity and was the victim of undue influence and/or duress when he 

signed his last will and testament. The individual Respondents and the Estate filed a joint 

response brief in support of the circuit court’s decision.1 Petitioner Stiles did not file a 

reply. 

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-

11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the 

applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For 

these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate 

under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

In this will contest, the decedent is Stanley E. Stiles. Petitioner Stiles is one of the 

decedent’s four children. The Respondents include the decedent’s remaining three 

children, his grandchildren, and the representative of his estate. The decedent lived in 

1 Petitioner Stiles is represented by Christopher P. Stroech, Esq. The individual

Respondents are represented by Richard G. Gay, Esq. The Estate is represented by Kenneth 

J. Barton, Jr., Esq.

FILED

February 8, 2024

C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

Jefferson County, West Virginia, and passed away on June 29, 2021, at the age of ninetythree. A timeline of events is as follows. 

The decedent had a will drafted in 2008, wherein he distributed his and his late 

wife’s belongings to all his children, in similar proportions. The decedent’s daughter, Joyce 

Rawn, was named as the decedent’s power of attorney (“POA”) from 2006 to April of 

2012. Petitioner Stiles was named as his POA on October 24, 2017. A second will was 

drafted in 2019, by attorneys who had been involved with decedent’s estate planning for a 

significant period of time. The 2019 Will solely benefitted Petitioner Stiles and failed to 

distribute any of the decedent’s real estate to his remaining children or grandchildren. In 

the fall of 2020, the decedent removed Petitioner Stiles’ name from his bank account and 

added his other son, Respondent Steven Stiles, to the account. On January 6, 2021, the 

decedent revoked Petitioner Stiles’ power of attorney. Then, on February 17, 2021, the 

decedent retained a new attorney from Miles & Stockbridge for estate planning purposes. 

On February 25, 2021, Dr. Khalid El-Sayed, at the direction of the decedent’s new attorney,

performed a forensic psychiatric evaluation of the decedent and determined that he had 

testamentary capacity. On March 2, 2021, Respondent Steven Stiles, Jr., was appointed as 

the decedent’s POA and representative for his living will. The decedent’s third and final 

will was also executed on March 2, 2021. This Will was similar to the 2008 Will, wherein

most of the decedent’s property was distributed to his remaining children and 

grandchildren, except that little was left to Petitioner Stiles because he had already received 

his inheritance.2 None of the parties to this action were present at the signing of the 2021 

Will. 

The 2021 Will was admitted to probate without protest and was later recorded. 

However, after realizing that he would not inherit or be able to purchase the seventeen 

acres that the decedent occupied until his death, Petitioner Stiles sought to impeach the 

2021 Will, arguing that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and was the victim of 

undue influence and duress caused by his siblings, the Respondents. Petitioner Stiles filed 

his complaint on December 1, 2021. The decedent’s estate filed its answer on December 

29, 2021, and the remaining Respondents filed their answer on March 1, 2022. Shortly 

thereafter, Petitioner Stiles filed answers to the Respondents’ interrogatories, which 

included text messages between the other siblings that Petitioner Stiles viewed as 

“colluding” against him. On November 21, 2022, the individual Respondents filed their

2 Petitioner Stiles had already been gifted by the decedent a 170+ acre farm, a septic 

seepage business which had earnings of approximately $70,000.00 per year, and full 

ownership of Riggs & Stiles, one of the decedent’s companies. The decedent had told 

multiple people (including his doctor and attorneys) that Petitioner Stiles had already 

received his inheritance. Further, Petitioner Stiles admitted in his answers to interrogatories 

that he had received everything the decedent stated that he had already received as his 

inheritance.
3

joint motion for summary judgment, asserting that there were no genuine issues of material 

fact regarding Petitioner Stiles claims that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity or 

was the victim of undue influence.

On November 21, 2022, the estate joined with the other Respondents in their motion 

for summary judgment. Petitioner Stiles filed a response to the motion for summary 

judgment on December 8, 2022. On December 21, 2022, Petitioner Stiles filed a motion to 

reopen discovery based on newly discovered text messages between his siblings. The 

circuit court entered its Order Granting Summary Judgment on February 5, 2023. The 

circuit court found that Petitioner Stiles failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact 

existed regarding the decedent’s testamentary capacity and whether the decedent was 

subjected to undue influence and/or duress. 

The circuit court found that Dr. El-Sayed, the forensic psychiatrist, as well as the 

attorneys who assisted in drafting the 2021 Will, determined that the decedent had the 

testamentary capacity. The order further found that J. Stephen McAuliffe, III, Esq., one of 

the attorneys who helped draft the will, as well as the forensic psychiatrist, heard the 

decedent tell Petitioner Stiles that he had already received his inheritance. Additionally, 

the circuit court found that Dr. Cathy Funk, the decedent’s treating physician, believed the 

decedent was competent each time she saw him between July of 2018 and May of 2021. 

Dr. Funk stated that the decedent showed no signs of dementia and was mentally competent 

to decide where he wanted to go for his final days before passing. Petitioner Stiles presented 

no expert testimony to refute any evidence presented by the respondents. Petitioner Stiles 

now appeals the February 5, 2023, order and argues that the circuit court erred in granting 

summary judgment to the Respondents. 

We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, Painter 

v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). “A motion for summary judgment should 

be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry 

concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.” Syl. Pt. 3, Aetna 

Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fed.l Ins. Co. of N.Y., 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963). 

Additionally, a circuit court is not to substitute its judgment for that of a jury. “The question 

to be decided on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a genuine issue of fact 

and not how that issue should be determined.” Id. at 160, 133 S.E.2d at 772, Syl. Pt. 5. 

Petitioner Stiles raises three assignments of error on appeal, which we will address 

in turn. First, Petitioner Stiles asserts that the circuit court erred in granting summary 

judgment on his claim that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity when he executed 

his 2021 Will. Upon review, we disagree. 

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has held that testamentary capacity 

merely requires one “to understand the nature and consequences of his act, the property to 

be disposed of, and the objects of his bounty.” Syl. Pt. 1, Payne v. Payne, 97 W. Va. 627, 
4

125 S.E. 818 (1924). Further, “[g]reater mental capacity is required to execute a deed or 

contract than a will.” Syl. Pt. 4, Prichard v. Prichard, 135 W. Va. 767, 65 S.E.2d 65 (1951). 

Additionally, “[t]he time to be considered in determining the capacity of the testator to 

make a will is the time at which the will was executed.” Syl. Pt. 3, Frye v. Norton, 148 W. 

Va. 500, 135 S.E.2d 603 (1964). 

Evidence was presented below that the forensic psychiatrist, the decedent’s 

attorneys, the individual Respondents, and the decedent’s treating physician believed the 

decedent to have testamentary capacity. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia 

has held, “The testimony of an attending physician or the lawyer who drafted the will is [. 

. .] entitled to great weight on the question of mental capacity.” Floyd v. Floyd, 148 W. Va. 

183, 196-97, 133 S.E.2d 726, 734 (1963). Floyd further says, “[a]lthough such evidence in 

favor of a will is not conclusive, it must be clearly outweighed by other evidence in order 

to support a verdict against the validity of the will.” Id. at 184, 133 S.E.2d at 728, Syl. Pt. 

3. In the present case, the record reflects that Petitioner Stiles merely presented testimony 

of himself, his wife, and his son. He chose not to depose or rebut any of the Respondents’ 

expert witnesses with his own expert witness. Thus, the circuit court did not err when it 

held that the experts’ evidence was not outweighed and by granting summary judgment on

this issue. 

As his second assignment of error, Petitioner Stiles asserts that the circuit court erred 

in granting summary judgment on his claim that the decedent was unduly influenced and/or

under duress when he executed his 2021 Will. Upon review, we disagree. Our Supreme 

Court of Appeals has held that “[u]ndue influence, to invalidate a will, must be such 

influence as destroys the free agency of the testator and, in legal effect, amounts to force 

and coercion.” Syl. Pt. 14, Ritz v. Kingdon, 139 W. Va. 189, 79 S.E.2d 123 (1953). Further, 

Frye states, “[i]n an action to impeach a will the burden of proving undue influence is upon 

the party who alleges it and mere suspicion, conjecture, possibility or guess that undue 

influence has been exercised is not sufficient to support a verdict which impeaches the will 

upon that ground.” Syl. Pt. 5, Frye v. Norton, 148 W. Va. 500, 135 S.E.2d 603 (1964). In 

the present case, the decedent’s treating physician testified in her affidavit that the decedent 

was of sound mind and fully competent each time she visited him in his home, that he had 

no symptoms of dementia or neurological brain disorders, that he was alert and oriented, 

and that he was fully competent even during his last hospital stay prior to his death. In 

contrast, Petitioner Stiles produced only broad statements about his suspicions that the 

decedent had been unduly influenced and even testified that he was “speculating” that the 

decedent had been subject to duress. Petitioner Stiles’ mere suspicions were insufficient to 

create a genuine issue of material fact. As such, we find no error in the circuit court’s 

granting of summary judgment on the issue of undue influence. 

As his third assignment of error, Petitioner Stiles asserts that the circuit court erred 

when it refused to reopen discovery and permit him to engage in continued depositions of 

the individual respondents based upon their supplemental discovery responses. In support 
5

of his argument, he states that he received many additional text messages that had been 

exchanged between the Respondents, many of which were blurry but revealed evidence of 

collusion between the siblings, and that additional time and further discovery were 

necessary. Upon review, we find that this argument lacks merit. Rule 56(f) of the West 

Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure states, 

Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the 

party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify 

the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or 

may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to 

be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.

Regarding Rule 56(f), our Supreme Court has held that, 

[w]here a party is unable to resist a motion for summary judgment because 

of an inadequate opportunity to conduct discovery, that party should file an 

affidavit pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and obtain a ruling thereon by 

the trial court. Such affidavit and ruling thereon, or other evidence that the 

question of a premature summary judgment motion was presented to and

decided by the trial court, must be included in the appellate record to preserve 

the error for review by this Court.

Syl. Pt. 3, Milmoe v. Paramount Senior Living at Ona, LLC, 247 W. Va. 68, 77, 875 S.E.2d 

206, 215 (2022) (citing Syl. Pt. 3, Crain v. Lightner, 178 W. Va. 765, 364 S.E.2d 778 

(1987). In the case at bar, Petitioner Stiles has failed to direct this Court to any affidavit in 

the record regarding the need for additional discovery pursuant to West Virginia Rule of 

Civil Procedure 56(f). 

Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court of Jefferson County’s February 5, 2023, 

order. 

Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 8, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen

Judge Daniel W. Greear