STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

John MacDougall, FILED 

Plaintiff Below, Petitioner June 28, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

vs) No. 12-0175 (Monongalia County 11-CAP-2) SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Renda Osburn, 

Defendant Below, Respondent 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner John MacDougall, pro se, appeals the Circuit Court of Monongalia County’s 

order entered January 12, 2012, that affirmed the magistrate court order granting respondent legal 

ownership of a mobile home. Respondent Renda Osburn filed no 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 is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

On September 23, 2011, petitioner signed a document stating as follows: 

I John MacDougall gave Renda Osburn a 12x65 trailer. This trailer needs a lot of 

repairs before she and her family can move in. It will take at least 30 days or more 

to get these repairs done. . . . She will have to start paying lot rent on Oct. 1st. The 

lot rent is $310.00 a month. 

A writing dated October 1, 2011, purports that petitioner purchased the same mobile home from 

one Dean Cutler for one dollar. Petitioner makes no explanation of Mr. Cutler’s connection to the 

mobile home. Notwithstanding the previous September 23, 2011, agreement between petitioner 

and respondent, they apparently entered into a subsequent agreement, dated November 25, 2011, 

to sell the mobile home to respondent for $3,000 in monthly installments of $125. By a letter 

dated December 7, 2011, petitioner demanded respondent vacate the mobile home due to safety 

and maintenance issues. 

On December 16, 2011, petitioner filed suit in the Magistrate Court of Monongalia County 

to evict respondent from the trailer for wrongful occupation of residential property. The 

magistrate court found in favor of respondent and dismissed the case. Petitioner appealed to the 

circuit court, which found, by order entered January 12, 2012, that petitioner gave the trailer to 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

respondent and that the “contract” dated November 25, 2011, was signed under duress. Therefore, 

the circuit court concluded, the November contract was invalid and unenforceable, leaving the 

mobile home under respondent’s ownership. On appeal, petitioner argues that he did not own the 

mobile home until he executed the sale for one dollar on October 1, 2011, and therefore could not 

have conveyed it to respondent on September 23, 2011. 

“To constitute a valid gift inter vivos, the donor must be divested of, and the 

donee invested with, the right of property in the subject of the gift; it must be 

absolute, irrevocable and without any reference to its taking effect at some future 

period. The donor must deliver the property and part with all present and future 

dominion over it.” Syllabus Point 1, Dickeschied v. Exchange Bank, 28 W.Va. 

340 (1886). 

Syl. Pt. 4, Rosier v. Rosier, 227 W. Va. 88, 705 S.E.2d 595 (2010). 

The Court has carefully considered the merits of each of petitioner’s arguments as set 

forth in his brief. This Court has previously held that 

“[i]n reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court, we 

apply a two-prong deferential standard of review. We review the final order and 

the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the 

circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. 

Questions of law are subject to de novo review.” Syllabus point 2, Walker v. West 

Virginia Ethics Commission, 201 W.Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997). 

Syl. Pt. 5, Peters v. Rivers Edge Mining, Inc., 224 W.Va. 160, 680 S.E.2d 791 (2009). 

Petitioner offers no evidence to support his claim that the lower court did not fail to 

consider the writing dated October 1, 2011, which he purports is the bill of sale of the trailer. 

Furthermore, the circuit court did not err in finding that petitioner gave the trailer to respondent in 

September of 2011 because petitioner clearly, with no grounds for revocability in the writing or 

reference to some future effective date, gifted the trailer to the respondent via that writing, and the 

circuit court had sufficient support to find that the donor delivered the property and parted with all 

present and future dominion over it at the time of the writing. Therefore, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: June 28, 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 

2