1

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

NORMA ESTEP, MARY SMITH,

STEPHANIE GUNNO, and DEBRA GREENE,

Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners

vs.) No. 22-ICA-151 (Cir. Ct. Kanawha Cnty., Case No. 21-C-71)

WILLIAM V. GREENE and

WILLIAM V. GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., 

Defendants Below, Respondents

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioners Norma Estep, Mary Smith, Stephanie Gunno, and Debra Greene 

(“Sisters”) appeal the Circuit Court of Kanawha County’s August 26, 2022, “Final Order.” 

In that order, the circuit court granted summary judgment to Respondents William V. 

Greene and William V. Greene & Associates, Inc. William V. Greene and William V. 

Greene & Associates, Inc., timely filed a response in support of the circuit court’s order.1

The Sisters 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. 

The parties are all the children of Inez Greene. In the 1990s the parties’ father 

invested approximately $150,000.00 in William Greene’s business, Brandywine Homes. 

This was a “handshake” deal that was not documented. Brandywine Homes dissolved on 

September 15, 2005, after filing for bankruptcy. William V. Greene & Associates, Inc., has 

always been a separate entity from Brandywine Homes. 

On February 2, 2000, a Last Will and Testament was executed by Inez Greene that 

named William Greene as the personal representative over her estate. The Last Will and 

Testament is two pages long and was drafted on a standard form. The handwritten 

“Bequests” section states that all proceeds from the sale of Inez Greene’s home, the 

1 The Sisters are represented by Alan L. Pritt, Esq. William V. Greene and William 

V. Greene & Associates, Inc., are represented by Charles R. Bailey, Esq., and Josef A. 

Horter, Esq.

FILED

June 15, 2023

EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA
2

proceeds from the sale of her personal belongings that were not taken by her children or 

grandchildren, as well as the monies in her checking and CD accounts should be equally 

divided among her children. The estate of Inez Greene is not otherwise defined. Inez 

Greene passed away on December 20, 2010. Her Last Will and Testament was never 

probated. William Greene was a joint owner of Inez Greene’s bank account. Following her 

death, in January of 2011, William Greene distributed the remaining funds in Inez Greene’s 

bank account to the Sisters. These funds included the proceeds from the sale of Inez 

Greene’s home, which was sold prior to Inez Greene’s death. 

In February 2011, William Greene sent a letter to the Sisters that informed them of 

his intent to sell property in which their parents had invested located in Nitro, West 

Virginia, and that each of the Sisters would be receiving $30,000.00 from the sale. The 

Nitro property was owned by William V. Greene & Associates, Inc. Four years later, on 

December 25, 2015, William Greene sent the Sisters $4,000.00 each and informed them 

that though he had difficulty finding a buyer for the property, he finally found someone 

who made a down payment and agreed to pay the remaining purchase price over time. He 

further informed them that he would send each of them an additional $26,000.00 over the 

next five or six years. 

On January 15, 2020, one of the Sisters reached out to William Greene in an attempt 

to resolve the remaining sums owed to her. However, there was no resolution, and the 

Sisters filed their complaint on January 22, 2021, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach 

of contract, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages. 

On June 6, 2022, William Greene and William V. Greene & Associates, Inc. moved 

for summary judgment. On June 7, 2022, the Sisters moved for summary judgment. On 

August 26, 2022, the circuit court, without a hearing, granted summary judgment in favor 

of William Greene and William V. Greene & Associates, Inc. In that order, the circuit court 

concluded, with respect to the claim asserted for breach of fiduciary duty, that since 

William Greene was never qualified as executor, he had no fiduciary relationship with the 

Sisters. Regarding the claim asserted for breach of contract, the circuit court concluded that 

there was no evidence of a contract between William Greene and his parents, and, further, 

there was no contract formed between William Greene and the Sisters based on his promise 

to pay them each $30,000.00 for the sale of the Nitro property because there was no mutual 

obligation. Regarding the claim for unjust enrichment, the circuit court concluded that the 

Sisters showed no legal entitlement to the money they claimed was owed. In addition, the 

circuit court concluded that no facts or arguments were advanced by the Sisters regarding 

William V. Greene & Associates, Inc., as to any count and, therefore, summary judgment 

was appropriate. It is from this order that the Sisters appeal. 

On appeal, we apply the following standard of review: “[a] circuit court’s entry of 

summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 

S.E.2d 755 (1994). Further, “[a] motion for summary judgment should be granted only 
3

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. Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770, 771 (1963).

In regard to the Sisters’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty, it is clear that “the 

personal representative of the estate of a deceased acts in a fiduciary capacity.” See Latimer 

v. Mechling, 171 W. Va. 729, 732, 301 S.E.2d 819, 822 (1983). Although, an individual 

nominated as personal representative in a will cannot act as personal representative unless 

they are duly qualified. See W. Va. Code § 44-1-1 (2021). Here, while William Greene was 

nominated as personal representative in the parties’ mother’s will, it is undisputed that he 

was never qualified as the personal representative of the parties’ mother’s estate.2

However, even assuming without deciding that a fiduciary relationship was formed based 

on the tasks William Greene voluntarily undertook in handling certain matters related to 

the estate and his mother’s assets, it is difficult to determine how the Sisters have been 

damaged by any alleged breach as their interests under their mother’s will have not been 

diminished. Their mother’s will directed that the proceeds from the sale of her home, the 

proceeds from the sale of her personal property, and the monies in her bank accounts be 

equally distributed among her children. There is no allegation that this was not 

accomplished. Lastly, the Sisters make no argument that a fiduciary relationship existed 

between them and William V. Greene & Associates, Inc. Accordingly, the circuit court did 

not err in granting summary judgment in favor of William Greene and William V. Greene 

& Associates, Inc. as to this claim. 

With respect to the Sisters’ breach of contract claim, “[t]he fundamentals of a legal 

‘contract’ are competent parties, legal subject-matter, valuable consideration, and mutual 

assent. There can be no contract, if there is one of these essential elements upon which the 

minds of the parties are not in agreement.” Syl. Pt. 5, Virginian Export Coal Co. v. Rowland 

Land Co., 100 W.Va. 559, 131 S.E. 253 (1926). “If one party to a contract is not bound to 

do the act which forms the consideration for the promise, undertaking, or agreement of the 

other, the contract is void for want of mutuality.” Syl. Pt. 5, Eclipse Oil Co. v. S. Penn Oil 

Co., 47 W. Va. 84, 34 S.E. 923 (1899). Regarding the alleged contract between William 

Greene and the Sisters,3 William Greene’s promise to pay them each $30,000.00 did not 

form a valid contract. The Sisters were “not bound to do an act which forms the 

consideration for the promise,” and, therefore, the alleged contract is “void for want of 

2 The Court notes that it is unclear who was in possession of the Last Will and 

Testament of Inez Greene at the time of her death. The Sisters each testified that they knew 

of the will’s existence. However, they did not seek to compel its production for probate 

pursuant to West Virginia Code § 41-5-3 (1923).

3 The Sisters’ complaint only alleges that there was a contract between the Sisters 

and William Greene. However, both before the circuit court and on appeal, the Sisters argue 

that there was also a contract between William Greene and the parties’ mother. 
4

mutuality.” Id. Regarding the alleged contract between William Greene and the parties’ 

mother, there is simply no evidence that a valid contractual relationship was formed. While 

there is evidence that there were some types of monetary contributions made by one or 

both of the parties’ parents to William Greene and/or his businesses, and that William 

Greene intended to pay money to his mother as a result of such contributions, nothing

indicates that such monetary contributions were the result of a valid contract being formed,

or that William Greene’s payment to his mother was contractually required. Rather, the 

record reflects that William Greene felt a moral obligation to pay money to his mother for 

his parents’ prior monetary contribution that was lost in the bankruptcy of Brandywine 

Homes. As to William V. Greene & Associates, Inc., the Sisters make no argument that a 

contractual relationship existed between them or their mother and William V. Greene & 

Associates, Inc. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment 

in favor of William Greene and William V. Greene & Associates, Inc. as to this claim.

Turning to the Sisters’ claim for unjust enrichment, the theory of unjust enrichment 

is based on the principle “that it would be unjust to allow a person to retain money on 

which he had no valid claim.” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Couch, 180 W. Va. 210, 214, 

376 S.E.2d 104, 108 (1988). There is no evidence that the monetary contributions made by 

the parties’ parents to William Greene were not freely given to William Greene or that the 

Sisters were legally entitled to the money they claim is owed to them by William Greene. 

As to William V. Greene & Associates, Inc., the Sisters make no argument that William 

V. Greene & Associates, Inc. was unjustly enriched. Accordingly, the circuit court did not 

err in granting summary judgment in favor of William Greene and William V. Greene & 

Associates, Inc. as to this claim.

Accordingly, the circuit court’s August 26, 2022, order is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: June 15, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear

Judge Thomas E. Scarr

Judge Charles O. Lorensen