STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Bernard L. Thompson, Plaintiff Below, FILED 

Petitioner June 15, 2015 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS vs) No. 14-1058 (Summers County 12-C-43) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Lunia W. Thompson, Defendant Below, 

Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Bernard L. Thompson, by counsel Paul Detch, appeals the Circuit Court of 

Summers County’s September 12, 2014, order that granted respondent a directed verdict. 

Respondent Lunia W. Thompson, by counsel E. Kent Hellems, filed a response. 

This 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 affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

On October 23, 1985, the parties entered into a written contract for the sale of their 

father’s automobile.1 The contract provided that: 

I[,] L. Wilson Thompson [respondent], on this 23 day of Oct. 1985, do 

agree to purchase one 1948 Ford Truck, serial number; 56430 for $500.00 

from Bernard L. Thompson [petitioner]. I will keep a record book of each 

and every dollar spent towards restoration of the truck. No charge for any 

of my labor. 

If I should ever decide to sell the said truck, or in case of my death, said 

truck will go back to Bernard L. Thompson or his family; wife, son, 

daughter, grandchildren, or brothers, ect . . . at the price of $500.00 plus 

recorded dollars spent on restoration of the truck. 

And I do promise to keep said truck in first class antique condition. 

In August of 2012, petitioner filed a petition for recovery of personal property and 

petition for an injunction alleging that respondent breached the contract for failing to maintain 

1

Petitioner and respondent are siblings. 

1


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the vehicle in “first class antique condition.” The circuit court held a bench trial in August of 

2014. Thereafter, the circuit court entered an order granting respondent a directed verdict. 

On appeal, petitioner argues that the circuit court erred in granting respondent a directed 

verdict because he failed to keep the truck in first class antique condition, which was a clear and 

unambiguous term of the contract. Rule 10(c)(7) of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate 

Procedure requires that 

[t]he brief must contain an argument exhibiting clearly the points of fact and law 

presented, the standard of review applicable, and citing the authorities relied on . . 

. [and] must contain appropriate and specific citations to the record on appeal[.] 

The Court may disregard errors that are not adequately supported by specific 

references to the record on appeal. 

Additionally, in an Administrative Order entered December 10, 2012, Re: Filings That Do Not 

Comply With the Rules of Appellate Procedure, then-Chief Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

specifically noted in paragraph 2 that “[b]riefs that lack citation of authority [or] fail to structure 

an argument applying applicable law” are not in compliance with this Court’s rules. Further, 

paragraph 7 states that “[b]riefs with arguments that do not contain a citation to legal authority to 

support the argument presented and do not ‘contain appropriate and specific citations to the 

record on appeal . . .’ as required by rule 10(c)(7)” are not in compliance with this Court’s rules. 

Here, petitioner’s brief is woefully inadequate as it fails to comply with the administrative order 

and the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner’s brief does not contain an 

argument exhibiting the law presented, the applicable standard of review, cite to any legal 

authorities relied on, or contain any specific citations to the record.2 Thus, we decline to address 

petitioner’s assignment of error as it was not properly developed on appeal. 

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss. 

Dismissed. 

ISSUED: June 15, 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 

2

We note that petitioner’s counsel cited to the appendix record one time in his brief. 

2