STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

July 8, 2013 

Keith William DeBlasio, Patricia A. Dilts, and 

Alan J. Dilts, Defendants Below, Petitioners 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

vs.) Nos. 12-0652, 12-0686, and 12-0693 (Morgan County 11-C-31) 

Cold Spring Forest Sec. 1 Homeowners 

Association, Inc., a West Virginia corporation and 

Estel Donald Lambert Jr., Plaintiffs Below, 

Respondents 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

In the first of these consolidated appeals, Petitioner Keith William DeBlasio, pro se, 

appeals a final order of the Circuit Court of Morgan County, entered May 7, 2012, dismissing him 

as a defendant after finding that he was improperly joined as a party. In the other appeals, 

Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts each appeal the same final order that, with 

respect to them, awarded summary judgment and, as a sanction, default judgment to Respondent 

Cold Spring Forest Sec. 1 Homeowners Association, Inc. Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner 

Patricia A. Dilts also each appeal the circuit court’s May 25, 2012 order that denied their motions 

for reconsideration. Respondents Cold Spring Forest Sec. 1 Homeowners Association, Inc. and 

Estel Donald Lambert Jr., its president (collectively “respondents”), by counsel George I. McVey 

and Joanna L-S Robinson, filed separate responses in each petitioner’s appeal. 

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. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Petitioner DeBlasio is the stepson of Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and the son of Petitioner 

Patricia A. Dilts. Petitioners have ownership interests in two lots in their subdivision and have 

been engaged in various disputes with their homeowners association, Respondent Cold Spring 

Forest Sec. 1 Homeowners Association, Inc. (“respondent association”). In the case now on 

appeal, the respondent association sued Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts for 

damage caused to the graveled subdivision road in the amount $425 and for $200 in assessment 

fees for the 2011 annual road assessment. 

-1­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In their answers, the Diltses attempted to assert a third party complaint against Respondent 

Lambert alleging that he was responsible for excessive gravel loss, trespassed on their property, 

dumped snow and gravel onto their landscape, and struck Petitioner Alan J. Dilts. The Diltses also 

alleged that Respondent Lambert was guilty of harassing Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts. The Diltses 

attempted to assert a third party complaint against Nathan Brashears who, according the 

respondent association’s complaint, damaged the gravel subdivision road while acting on behalf of 

the Diltses or their tenant Petitioner DeBlasio.1 

On November 8, 2011, the circuit court joined Petitioner DeBlasio as an additional 

defendant based upon a motion for joinder filed by Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts. Petitioner DeBlasio 

then asserted a third party complaint against Respondent Lambert alleging that he was responsible 

for the damage to the subdivision road, although it was unclear whether it was alleged that 

Respondent Lambert was responsible for the damage as an individual or as an agent of the 

respondent association. 

Petitioners appeared, pro se, and respondents appeared, by counsel, for a hearing on April 

27, 2012. Although the hearing was a pretrial hearing, with trial set for May 9, 2012, the circuit 

court concluded the hearing by instructing the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law “with regard to today’s proceedings.” When Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts asked if 

the circuit court was going to make certain findings before the trial would commence, the court 

answered as follows: “Yes, ma’am. . . . I’m going to make findings of fact and conclusions [of 

law].” Petitioner DeBlasio and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts each submitted proposed orders to 

dismiss the case on May 1, 2012. On May 3, 2012, the respondent association submitted proposed 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. The following day, the respondent association filed a 

motion for summary judgment. 

The circuit court entered its final order retiring the case from its active docket on May 7, 

2012. The circuit court determined that the case was “ripe for adjudication.” With respect to 

Petitioner DeBlasio, the circuit court found that he was improperly joined ruling that “[Petitioner] 

DeBlasio is dismissed from this case along with any and all remaining claims and motions brought 

by [Petitioner] DeBlasio.”2 

With respect to respondent’s claim that Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. 

Dilts owed $200 for the 2011 annual road assessment, the circuit court ruled that “summary 

judgment must be granted for [respondent] for its claims for overdue assessment fees.”3 The 

circuit court specifically found that respondent had both authority to collect the fees under the 

1 Petitioner DeBlasio first had an ownership interest in a lot within the subdivision from 

2001 to 2003. From July 2, 2010, Petitioner DeBlasio has had a diminutive fee simple interest in 

the family’s two lots. 

2 The circuit court indicated that it was dismissing Petitioner DeBlasio on its own initiative 

pursuant to Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3 The circuit court indicated that it was granting summary judgment sua sponte, citing 

Syllabus Point Four, Southern Erectors, Inc. v. Olga Coal Co., 159 W.Va. 385, 223 S.E.2d 46 

(1976). 

-2­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and the standing to sue for them. The circuit court also 

noted that the respondent association is in good standing with the West Virginia Secretary of State 

and found that contrary to Petitioners’ arguments, there was no cause to dissolve the respondent 

association pursuant to West Virginia Code § 31E-13-1330. 

The circuit court also granted the respondent association summary judgment on the 

Diltses’s counterclaim that it has failed to repay or credit any surplus funds remaining after 

payment of or provision for common expenses. The circuit court ruled that any such claim “is 

wholly without merit.”4 

The circuit court dismissed Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts’s third 

party complaints against Respondent Lambert and Mr. Brashears. With respect to Respondent 

Lambert, the circuit court found that service of the Dilts’s third party complaint against him “was 

never completed.” With respect to Mr. Brashears, the circuit court found that there is “no evidence 

that service was attempted” and that “this claim appears to have been all but forgotten by 

[Petitioners] Alan and Patricia Dilts, as well as [Petitioner] DeBlasio.” 

Also, the circuit court granted the respondent association default judgment, on its claim 

that Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts owed $425 for damage caused to the 

graveled subdivision road, as a sanction against the Diltses’s “continued and serious misconduct.” 

Among the misconduct, the circuit court noted, were the following: (1) asserting frivolous claims; 

(2) making factual denials that lacked evidentiary support; (3) subpoenaing large numbers of 

people unrelated to the litigation; (4) filing ethics complaints against respondents’ counsel; (5) 

attempting to create conflicts of interest; (6) manipulating procedure to join Petitioner DeBlasio so 

that he could act as their “attorney”; and (7) willfully deceiving the court. 

Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts filed motions for reconsideration 

that the circuit court denied in an order entered May 25, 2012. The circuit court found that the 

Diltses advanced claims and/or factual allegations that it had already addressed. The circuit court 

specifically referenced Petitioner Alan J. Dilts’s allegation that he, Alan J. Dilts, was not provided 

an interpreter,5 but found that it was among the issues it had previously addressed. The circuit 

court also noted Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts’s claim that ethics complaints were not filed against 

4 The circuit court also noted that it would not address the issue of invalidated mechanic’s 

liens because the doctrine of res judicata barred “any claims for alleged damages.” In related cases, 

Petitioners contended that the mechanic’s liens were actually fraudulent common law liens. 

However, the circuit court determined the liens involved were mechanic’s liens finding that “the 

lien[s] . . . [are] statutory in nature despite the manner in which the County Clerk recorded [the 

liens] or what the Clerk may have told [Petitioner] DeBlasio.” Petitioners appealed two orders of 

the circuit court in those cases, including its ruling that the liens were mechanic’s liens; however, 

because the liens at issue were invalidated, petitioners’ appeals were dismissed as moot. See In Re: 

A Purported Lien or Claim Against Patricia Ann DeBlasio Dilts, Nos. 11-1523 and 12-0223, 2013 

WL 1707695 (W.Va. Supreme Court, April 19, 2013). Therefore, the circuit court’s classification 

of the liens as mechanic’s liens has now become final. 

5 Petitioner Alan J. Dilts is deaf. 

-3­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

both of respondents’ attorneys, but stated that “this Court took into account a litany of 

[Petitioners]’s wrongdoings in coming to its decision to impose partial default judgment as a 

sanction.” 

In his appeal, Petitioner DeBlasio appeals the final order. In their appeals, Petitioner Alan 

J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts appeal both the final order and the subsequent denial of 

their motions for reconsideration. All three petitioners make numerous assignments of error. 

PETITIONERS’ OBJECTION TO GEORGE I. MCVEY
 

AND HIS LAW FIRM’S REPRESENTATION OF RESPONDENT
 

Petitioner DeBlasio and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts raise this issue. Respondents argue that 

the circuit court properly allowed their choice of legal representation. This issue was addressed in 

a related case between Petitioner DeBlasio and respondents. In that case, in affirming the circuit 

court, this Court concluded, inter alia, that “the circuit court did not err in overruling [Petitioner] 

DeBlasio’s objection to [respondents’] legal representation.” DeBlasio v. Stone, Nos. 11-1152 and 

11-1153, 2012 WL 6097653, at *4 (W.Va. Supreme Court, December 7, 2012) (memorandum 

decision). Because this issue has been previously adjudicated, this Court concludes that it is 

without merit.6 

INTERPRETING SERVICES PROVIDED TO PETITIONER ALAN J. DILTS 

All three petitioners raise this issue. Petitioners note that Petitioner Alan J. Dilts was not 

provided with an interpreter at the November 30, 2011 hearing. They also argue that he should 

have had an interpreter for proceedings outside of the courtroom that were connected to the 

litigation. Respondents argue the circuit court’s rulings on this issue were proper. A proper request 

for an interpreter was not made with respect to the November 30, 2011 hearing. The transcript of 

that hearing has been reviewed. Petitioner Alan J. Dilts was not prejudiced by not having an 

interpreter. There was a discussion about when and where an interpreter should be provided to 

him. Following the November 30, 2011 hearing, an interpreter was appointed for Petitioner Alan J. 

Dilts. The interpreter was in attendance when Petitioner Alan J. Dilts’s wife was deposed on 

January 17, 2012. Petitioner Alan J. Dilts himself was not deposed. After careful consideration, 

this Court concludes that the circuit court properly addressed this issue once it was made aware of 

it.7 

CIRCUIT COURT’S SANCTIONING OF 

6 To the extent that there is a separate issue with respect to counsel’s representation of both 

the respondent association and its president, Respondent Lambert, that issue is addressed in the 

final order where the circuit court discusses whether default judgment should be entered as a 

sanction against Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts. 

7 Petitioner Alan J. Dilts further argues that he should have been provided with an attorney 

to represent his interests. However, in purely civil matters, “we ordinarily do not appoint counsel 

for, or direct that counsel should be appointed for, pro se litigants.” White v. Haines, 217 W.Va. 

414, 423, 618 S.E.2d 423, 432 (2005). 

-4­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PETITIONER PATRICIA A. DILTS AT THE NOVEMBER 30, 2011 HEARING 

Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts raises this issue. At the November 30, 2011 hearing, the circuit 

court sanctioned Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts in the amount of $978.70 for not appearing for her 

deposition that was noticed for September 22, 2011. Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts argues that the 

circuit court should not have sanctioned her. Respondents argue that Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts 

was properly sanctioned for not attending the deposition. At the hearing, respondents asked for 

approximately $4,130 in attorney’s fees and costs for the non-attendance. However, the circuit 

court declined to award expenses for Respondent Lambert’s attendance at the deposition because 

he did not need to be there. The circuit court also reduced the attorney’s fees to $800 because much 

of the preparation would have needed to have been done anyway. Therefore, the circuit court 

awarded a total of $978.70, the attorney’s fees plus fees for the court reporter. “An attorney’s fee 

awarded as a sanction that explicitly is authorized by Rule 37(b) of the West Virginia Rules of 

Civil Procedure rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of that discretion 

will not be disturbed on appeal except in cases of abuse.” Syl. Pt. 4, Bartles v. Hinkle, 196 W.Va. 

381, 472 S.E.2d 827 (1996). After careful consideration, this Court concludes that the circuit court 

did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts in the amount of $978.70. 

CIRCUIT COURT’S DENIAL OF MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts appeal the denial of their motions 

for reconsideration. Respondents argue that the circuit court properly denied the Diltses’s motions. 

The circuit court found that the motions were timely filed under Rule 59(e) of the West Virginia 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e) “provides the procedure for a party who seeks to change or 

revise a judgment entered as a result of a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.” 

Syl. Pt. 4, James M.B. v. Carolyn M., 193 W.Va. 289, 456 S.E.2d 16 (1995). Because summary 

judgment is reviewed de novo, we review the Diltses’s Rule 59(e) motions under that standard. See 

Syl. Pt. 1, Wickland v. American Travellers Life Insurance Co., 204 W.Va. 430, 513 S.E.2d 657 

(1998). However, even under plenary review, it is clear that the motions lack merit. As noted by 

the circuit court, both motions advanced claims and/or factual allegations that it had already 

addressed. Therefore, after careful consideration, this Court concludes that the circuit court did 

not err in denying Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilt’s motions for 

reconsideration. 

With respect to all other non-frivolous issues raised,8 we hereby adopt and incorporate the 

circuit court’s well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of error raised in these 

consolidated appeals. The Clerk is directed to attach a copy of the circuit court’s final order to this 

memorandum decision. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decisions of the Circuit Court of Morgan 

County. We affirm both the circuit court’s May 7, 2012 final order and its May 25, 2011 order 

denying Petitioner Alan J. Dilts and Petitioner Patricia A. Dilts’s motions for reconsideration. 

8 Some of Petitioners’ assignments of error are wholly frivolous and, therefore, do not 

merit any discussion. 

-5­
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: July 8, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

-6­