1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

Prestige Holdings, LLC, 

Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

vs.) No. 18-1133 (Monongalia County 17-C-289)

Kourt Security Partners, LLC,

Defendant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Prestige Holdings, LLC, by counsel Sam H. Harrold III, appeals the Circuit 

Court of Monongalia County’s November 27, 2018, final order dismissing its complaint with 

prejudice. Respondent Kourt Security Partners, LLC, by counsel Joseph V. Schaeffer and James 

A. Walls, filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order. On appeal, petitioner argues that 

the circuit court erred in denying its motion to amend its civil complaint to add necessary parties 

and in dismissing the case with prejudice after denying its motion for voluntary dismissal.

This case satisfies the “limited circumstances” requirement of Rule 21(d) of the West 

Virginia 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 reversed, and the 

case is remanded to the circuit court with instructions to enter an order containing findings of 

fact and conclusions of law sufficient for appellate review.

In July of 2017, petitioner filed a civil complaint alleging that it loaned a total of

$250,000 to MB Security and Mitch Brozick (“Brozick”) from September of 2013 to December 

of 2013. The loans were memorialized by promissory notes and secured by commercial security 

agreements. According to petitioner, the loans were in default by 2014. Petitioner alleged that the 

commercial security agreements pledged assets that were sold to respondent in November of 

2014. Accordingly, petitioner’s suit requested judgment against respondent for $737,310.42, 

which included the total amount loaned, plus interest. In September of 2017, petitioner filed a 

motion for default judgment, which the circuit court granted in October of 2017. Subsequently, 

respondent filed a motion to set aside the default judgment and reinstate the case to the active 

docket of the court. The circuit court granted respondent’s motion in November of 2017.

In December of 2017, petitioner filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Brozik as a 

defendant as he had cosigned the loans. Further, petitioner requested that Claude J. Ryan 

(“Ryan”) be added as a plaintiff because petitioner had assigned an interest in the promissory 

FILED

June 25, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

note to Ryan for valuable consideration. Petitioner argued that amending the complaint would 

not prejudice respondent because the parties would have ample time to respond and discovery 

had not yet concluded. By June of 2018, respondent filed a written consent to amend the 

complaint.

Petitioner filed the amended complaint in October of 2018, one day prior to a previously 

scheduled pretrial hearing. Due to the untimely filing of the amended complaint, the circuit court 

denied petitioner’s motion to amend. The circuit court also ordered that the parties mediate the 

issues within three days, a condition that was included in the scheduling order but ignored by the 

parties. 

Following the circuit court’s ruling, petitioner filed a motion for voluntary dismissal 

without prejudice under Rule 41(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent 

filed a response requesting that the circuit court defer ruling on petitioner’s motion for dismissal 

until ruling on respondent’s motion for sanctions, which accompanied its response. 

The circuit court held a hearing on petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal and 

respondent’s motion for sanctions. Ultimately, the circuit court denied respondent’s motion for 

sanctions, denied petitioner’s motion for voluntary dismissal, and dismissed the case with 

prejudice. With respect to the dismissal, the circuit court’s order provides simply that “good 

cause exists” to dismiss the civil action with prejudice. The circuit court’s final order dismissing 

the case was entered November 27, 2018. Petitioner now appeals this order.

On appeal, we find the circuit court’s final order is inadequate to perform any meaningful 

appellate review. We have previously held that circuit court orders dismissing an action must 

provide detailed findings of fact:

Appellate courts, on review, rely heavily on the trial judge’s order; the order is 

extremely important. The order often assists appellate courts in understanding 

what the trial court did and why, and good orders often rebut allegations made by 

appealing parties in briefs and arguments. If the lower tribunal is interested in 

having its decision affirmed, then the lower court should assist the appellate 

courts by providing comprehensive, well-reasoned orders. Submission of a 

comprehensive order assists an appellate court in finding a way to affirm the 

lower court’s order.

Dismissal orders, like summary judgment orders, should contain findings of fact 

which are sufficient to provide clear notice to all parties and the reviewing court 

as to the rationale applied by the lower court. We cannot perform our function 

when the lower court simply states its ruling in an order. So that we may provide 

meaningful appellate review, the lower court needs to provide us with more than a 

simple conclusion. Therefore, we hold that a circuit court’s order granting 

dismissal should set out factual findings sufficient to permit meaningful appellate 

review.
3

P.T.P., IV, ex rel. P.T.P., III, v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cty. of Jefferson, 200 W. Va. 61, 65, 488 

S.E.2d 61, 65 (1997). Here, the circuit court provided no findings of fact to justify its conclusion 

that “good cause exists” to dismiss petitioner’s complaint with prejudice. Further, the circuit 

court provided no legal analysis as to why dismissal was proper. Accordingly, it is necessary to 

reverse the circuit court’s order and remand the matter for the entry of a new order that is 

sufficient for appellate review.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s November 27, 2018, order

dismissing petitioner’s complaint with prejudice and remand the case with instructions to the 

circuit court to enter an order with findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for appellate 

review.

Reversed and remanded.

ISSUED: June 25, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

Justice John A. Hutchison