1

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

In re: Special Services Bureau, Inc.

d/b/a Regional Bonding Co.,

Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

No. 19-0365 (Berkeley County 18-P-121)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Special Services Bureau, Inc. d/b/a Regional Bonding Company (“Special 

Services Bureau”), by counsel Gregory E. Kennedy and Landon S. Moyer, appeals the order of 

the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, entered on March 15, 2019, denying its motion for relief 

from judgment. The final order from which petitioner seeks relief, entered on December 4, 2018, 

denied petitioner’s amended petition to renew its authority to conduct bail bonding activities in the 

23rd Judicial Circuit.

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 order of the circuit court is appropriate under Rule 21 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

In March of 2018, John Orem, then the principal and an agent of Special Services Bureau, 

petitioned the Circuit Court of Berkeley County for renewal of Special Services Bureau’s 

authorization to engage in the bail bonding business in the 23rd Judicial Circuit. According to the 

petition, Sher Orem (John Orem’s wife) and another individual also were agents of Special 

Services Bureau. The circuit court conducted an initial hearing on the petition on August 27, 2018. 

The appendix record on appeal does not contain the order scheduling the hearing, but it is apparent 

from the transcript that the circuit court had ordered Mr. Orem to submit to drug testing, and that 

Mr. Orem had not done so. In October of 2018, the circuit court entered an order directing Mr. 

Orem to refrain from the bail bonding business pending resolution of Special Services Bureau’s

renewal petition.

Special Services Bureau amended its petition for renewal of its authorization to engage in 

the bail bonding business, naming Sher Orem as its principal and omitting John Orem from its list 

of agents and from any apparent association with the business. At a subsequent hearing, Special 

Services Bureau, by counsel, represented that Ms. Orem was its “president, vice-president, 

treasurer, secretary, and agent for service of process” and was the sole owner of Special Services 

Bureau stock. At this hearing, the circuit court asked Ms. Orem about a bond she wrote a few 

weeks prior, while accompanied by Mr. Orem, before a Berkeley County magistrate judge. Ms. 

FILED

April 6, 2020

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

Orem testified in response: “. . . It’s not something that’s familiar for me so I was nervous and I 

had asked him to come with me to make sure I was doing everything properly because, you know, 

I was nervous.” Ms. Orem testified that she was not aware that the court had ordered her husband 

to abstain from the bail bonding business. The circuit court called upon the magistrate judge’s 

assistant, who testified that Mr. Orem hid from her sight while Ms. Orem waited for the assistant 

to grant access to the office. Ms. Orem denied that she deceived the magistrate court. The court 

also explained that when Ms. Orem wrote the bond before the magistrate court, she submitted a 

power of attorney (as requested by the magistrate judge) signed by her husband. The magistrate 

judge’s assistant testified that Mr. Orem instructed his wife how to complete the bond.

On December 4, 2018, the circuit court entered a final order denying the petition to renew 

Special Services Bureau’s authority to engage in the bonding business in the 23rd Judicial Circuit. 

The court found that neither Mr. nor Ms. Orem were of “good moral character,” and it wrote that 

it was unable to find that Ms. Orem was sufficiently removed from Mr. Orem “to not do what he 

directs her to do.” The court also found that Mr. Orem transferred control of Special Services 

Bureau to Ms. Orem to avoid Mr. Orem’s submission to drug testing. The court did, however, find 

that Ms. Orem was sufficiently financially responsible. 

Special Services Bureau filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of 

the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, based on “newly-discovered evidence” in the form of 

office surveillance video showing that Mr. Orem was visible to the magistrate judge’s assistant 

prior to the assistant’s granting the Orems access to the office. The circuit court conducted a 

hearing on that motion in February of 2019. The evidence presented included the video recording, 

and a proffer that the power of attorney in question was a form document pre-printed with Mr. 

Orem’s signature in 2015 as president of Special Services Bureau. However, it was Ms. Orem who 

signed the power of attorney as the “executing agent” in completing the bond documents.

On March 15, 2019, the circuit court entered the order that is the subject of this appeal, 

denying the motion for relief from judgment. In its order, the court struck its earlier findings that 

Ms. Orem concealed Mr. Orem’s presence when entering magistrate court and that Ms. Orem was 

“working in concert” with her husband to conceal his identity from the magistrate judge’s assistant. 

However, the circuit court ratified its earlier findings that Mr. Orem had continued to engage in 

the bail bonding business after having been instructed not to do so, and that Ms. Orem was not of 

good moral character. We review Special Services Bureau’s appeal, arising as it does from the 

circuit court’s denial of its motion for relief from judgment, according to the following standard:

“A motion to vacate a judgment made pursuant to Rule 60(b), W. Va. 

R.C.P., is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and the court’s ruling on 

such motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of an abuse 

of such discretion.” Syllabus point 5, Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va. 778, 204 S.E.2d 

85 (1974). 

Syl. Pt. 1, Jividen v. Jividen, 212 W. Va. 478, 575 S.E.2d 88 (2002).
3

Special Services Bureau asserts six assignments of error1, all of which may fairly be 

encompassed in the consideration of a single question: Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in 

denying Special Services Bureau’s motion for relief from judgment? Importantly, “‘[a]n appeal of 

the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion brings to consideration for review only the order of denial itself 

and not the substance supporting the underlying judgment nor the final judgment order.’ Syllabus 

point 3, Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va. 778, 204 S.E.2d 85 (1974).” Syl. Pt. 3, Jividen, 212 W. Va. 

478, 575 S.E.2d 88. The relevant inquiry is whether the circuit court utilized appropriate discretion 

when considering whether Special Services Bureau had demonstrated the need for relief based on 

any of the factors set forth in Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides, in pertinent part:

On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s 

legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following 

reasons: (1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or unavoidable 

cause; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been 

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether 

heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has 

been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment 

should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from 

the operation of the judgment.

Special Services Bureau argues that it presented the circuit court with “newlydiscovered evidence” in the form of office surveillance video that firmly discredited the 

testimony of the magistrate court assistant who testified that Mr. and Ms. Orem deceived the 

magistrate court in order to receive access to the magistrate court office. The court found Ms. 

Orem—Special Services Bureau’s principal—lacking in “good moral character” upon receiving 

this testimony and the assistant’s testimony that Mr. Orem continued to engage in bail 

bonding, and Special Services Bureau argues that the basis for these findings is now proven 

unreliable. We note, however, that the circuit court founded its determination on other 

considerations. Namely, the circuit court found Ms. Orem’s testimony that she was unaware 

that her husband was prohibited from engaging in bail bonding unreliable. The court also 

stood by its finding that Mr. Orem attempted to engage in bail bonding when he accompanied 

1 Special Services Bureau argues that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for relief 

from judgment, finding that Ms. Orem is not of good moral character, finding that Mr. Orem 

engaged in the bonding business in violation of the circuit court’s order, failing to consider another 

circuit court’s order finding that Ms. Orem was of good moral character, incorporating language 

in the final order that was not proposed by Special Services Bureau, and in entering an order on 

October 3, 2018, suspending Special Services Bureau’s authority to engage in bail bonding. We 

consider each of the first four assignments of error insofar as they are interlaced with the circuit 

court’s consideration of the newly-discovered evidence described in the body of this decision. The 

fifth assignment of error, however, we reject outright because a circuit court has absolute authority 

in the formulation of its orders, even when considering an order proposed by a party. The sixth 

assignment of error we reject outright as outside the scope of Rule 60(b) consideration.
4

Ms. Orem to magistrate court, and noted that Ms. Orem was aware at the time that he was doing 

so. There remaining some valid basis for the circuit court’s determination that Special Services 

Bureau’s agent lacked good moral character, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 6, 2020

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead

Justice Margaret L. Workman

Justice Elizabeth D. Walker

Justice Evan H. Jenkins

DISSENTING:

Justice John A. Hutchison