Opinion ID: 2655785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary judgment in favor of Sahley

Text: The petitioners assert that questions of fact concerning their claims against Sahley preclude summary judgment. They argue that a jury could find that a reasonable and prudent developer would not have allowed the retention pond to encroach upon the subject property, either during its original construction or through the alleged slippage, and that it is for a jury to determine what constitutes negligence.20 Conversely, Sahley argues that the petitioners failed to present more than a mere scintilla of evidence to resist its summary 20 The petitioners also assert that the circuit court did not address their claim of trespass against Sahley. A review of the petitioners’ Amended Complaint does not reveal a claim for trespass against Sahley. 9 judgment motion, instead offering mere conjecture in the form of neighborhood rumors and unauthenticated HOA meeting minutes. Sahley further argues that the petitioners served no discovery on it; failed to show any genuine issue of material fact on the essential elements of negligence; and failed to demonstrate that Sahley owed any duty to the petitioners as mere subsequent purchasers of the subject property. Further, Sahley argues that the petitioners failed to offer any expert opinions that the alleged slip in the retention pond’s eastern wall had occurred, or that there had been a resultant encroachment, or that Sahley’s acts or omissions solely and proximately caused the alleged failure or erosion of the engineered wall of the retention pond to a reasonable degree of certainty and to the exclusion of all other potential natural or man-made causes. In short, Sahley asserts that the circuit court was left with “nothing to work with but the bald assertions” of the petitioners. We agree. As we have previously explained, [t]he movant’s burden is “only [to] point to the absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party’s case.” Latimer v. Smithkline & French Laboratories, 919 F.2d 301, 303 (5th Cir.1990). . . . If the movant . . . make[s] this showing, the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and contradict the showing by pointing to specific facts demonstrating a “trialworthy” issue. . . . As to material facts on which the nonmovant will bear the burden at trial, the nonmovant must come forward with evidence which will be sufficient to enable it to survive a motion for directed verdict at trial. If the nonmoving party fails to meet this burden, the motion for summary judgment must be granted. See Nebraska v. Wyoming, 507 U.S. 584, 590, 113 S.Ct. 1689, 1694, 123 L.Ed.2d 317, 328 10 (1993); Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 884, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3186, 111 L.Ed.2d 695, 713 (1990). Merrill v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 219 W.Va. 151, 161, 632 S.E.2d 307, 317 (2006) (emphasis added) (quoting Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Props., Ltd., 196 W.Va. 692, 699, 474 S.E.2d 872, 879 (1996)). Here, the respondents clearly demonstrated the absence of evidence supporting the petitioners’ case, notwithstanding the circuit court’s decision to allow the petitioners time to gather supportive evidence. See Gibson v. Little General Stores, Inc., 221 W.Va. 360, 361, 655 S.E.2d 106, 107 (2007) (finding that despite being given additional time by circuit court plaintiff unable to produce evidence to resist motion for summary judgment from which trier of fact could consider her claim on basis other pure speculation and conjecture). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the party opposing summary judgment must satisfy the burden of proof “by offering more than a mere ‘scintilla of evidence’ and must produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in a nonmoving party’s favor. . . . The evidence illustrating the factual controversy cannot be conjectural or problematic.” Precision Coil, 194 W.Va. at 60, 459 S.E.2d at 337. In Dellinger v. Pediatrix Medical Group, P.C., 232 W.Va. 115, 750 S.E.2d 668 (2013), we further explained that “[w]hile it is true that ‘the nonmoving party is entitled to the most favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence, [such evidence] “cannot create a genuine issue 11 of material fact through mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another.”’” Id. at , 750 S.E.2d at 675 (internal citations omitted.). In the case sub judice, the petitioners only offered conjecture and speculation, which left the circuit court with their phantom survey, unauthenticated and imprecise HOA meeting minutes, and unsworn rumors and speculations of certain neighbors. Although the petitioners offered their joint affidavit, it addressed the Release, which was not a basis for the circuit court’s ruling, and petitioner Deborah Dickens’s separate affidavit merely referenced, but did not attach, the alleged survey. Furthermore, “[s]elf-serving assertions without factual support in the record will not defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Precision Coil, 194 W.Va. at 61 n.14, 459 S.E.2d at 338 n.14 (citation omitted). Not unlike the plaintiff in Dellinger, the petitioners appear to have misapprehended their burden at the summary judgment stage. The foundation for all of the petitioners’ claims was evidence that the eastern wall of the retention pond had actually slipped and encroached upon their property. Absent that foundation, all of the petitioners’ claims fail. With particular regard to Sahley, without evidence of an actual slip and a resultant encroachment, there can be no claim for negligent construction or maintenance of the retention pond. 12 Under West Virginia law, “‘[t]he burden is on the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was negligent and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.’ Syllabus Point 2, Walton v. Given, 158 W.Va. 897, 215 S.E.2d 647 (1975).” Syl. Pt. 2, Spencer v. McClure, 217 W.Va. 442, 618 S.E.2d 451 (2005). Apparently recognizing the lack of evidence to support their negligence claim against Sahley, the petitioners advised the circuit court during the October 2012 summary judgment hearing that they did not intend to have any expert opinions21 and were relying upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. However, “a party cannot avoid summary judgment merely because the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is invoked[,]”22 and, as the circuit court concluded, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not save the petitioners’ case. We concur. In syllabus point four of Foster v. City of Keyser, 202 W.Va. 1, 501 S.E.2d 165 (1997), we held, as follows: Pursuant to the evidentiary rule of res ipsa loquitur, it may be inferred that harm suffered by the plaintiff is caused by negligence of the defendant when (a) the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (b) other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the 21 The petitioners’ counsel commented during the summary judgment hearing that “the use of experts is overblown.” 22 Crum v. Equity Inns, Inc., 224 W.Va. 246, 256, 685 S.E.2d 219, 299 (2009) (quoting, in part, syl. pt. 6, Bronz v. St. Jude's Hosp. Clinic, 184 W.Va. 594, 402 S.E.2d 263 (1991). 13 evidence; and (c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff. We subsequently held that “ [i]n order to avoid summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law, a plaintiff who seeks to proceed on a theory of res ipsa loquitur must demonstrate each of the three prongs of the test this Court adopted in syllabus point four of Foster v. City of Keyser, 202 W.Va. 1, 501 S.E.2d 165 (1997), as a predicate to application of the evidentiary rule of res ipsa loquitur.” Syl. Pt. 6, Kyle v. Dana Transport, Inc., 220 W.Va. 714, 649 S.E.2d 287 (2007). Indeed, “‘[t]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked where the existence of negligence is wholly a matter of conjecture and the circumstances are not proved, but must themselves be presumed, or when it may be inferred that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant. The doctrine applies only in cases where defendant’s negligence is the only inference that can reasonably and legitimately be drawn from the circumstances.’ Syl. Pt. 5, Davidson’s, Inc. v. Scott, 149 W.Va. 470, 140 S.E.2d 807 (1965).” Syl. Pt. 2, Farley v. Meadows, 185 W.Va. 48, 404 S.E.2d 537 (1991). Syl. Pt. 5, Kyle, 220 W.Va. at 716, 649 S.E.2d at 289 (emphasis added.). In the case at bar, and as the circuit court correctly found, the petitioners cannot satisfy the first Foster factor—that “the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence”—because the petitioners had not provided evidence that the retention pond had, in fact, moved or that the respondents were negligent. Foster, 202 W.Va. at168, 501 S.E.2d at 4, syl. pt. 4, in part. Although the circuit court did not need to reach the 14 second Foster factor—that “other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence”—it is clear from our review of the appendix record that had the petitioners met the first Foster factor, they could not meet the second factor. Id. As Sahley argued, there could have been natural erosion in the eastern wall of the retention pond during the intervening years since its construction in 1999; Terlin may have disturbed the eastern wall of the pond, as discussed previously;23 and, there may have been a failure in the maintenance or preservation of the retention pond by the HOA.24 In short, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could not overcome the petitioners’ lack of evidence to support their case. Consequently, we find no error in the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Sahley on the petitioners’ negligence claim. B. Summary judgment in favor of the Sterners and WHR The petitioners assert that genuine issues of fact exist as to their claims of breach of implied contract, negligence, fraud, and constructive fraud against the Sterners and 23 The circuit court found in its summary judgment order that Terlin had buried pipes from the house and through the east wall of the retention pond. This was an allegation in Sahley’s third-party complaint against Terlin against whom a default judgment was entered. See 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.32[l][a]&[b] (3rd ed.2008) (recognizing that a defaulting party admits factual basis of claims asserted against it). 24 The November 2006 HOA meeting minutes cited by the petitioners state that “treet” might be placed around the “pit.” These minutes provide support for Sahley’s averment that the HOA had some responsibility for the common areas, including the retention ponds, prior to the April 2010 deed by which Sahley conveyed the common areas to the HOA. See also, supra note 8. 15 WHR. Relying upon Thacker25 and Lengyel,26 the petitioners argue that a jury should decide whether the Sterners and WHR acted reasonably in discharging their duty of accurate disclosure about the condition of the subject property. The petitioners also argue that they relied upon the Sterners’ disclosure forms on which a box was checked “no” in response to the question of whether there were any encroachments. The Sterners argue that summary judgment was proper because the petitioners failed to produce any evidence of the alleged slip or their alleged damages. As with Sahley, the foundation for all of the petitioners’ claims against the Sterners and WHR was contingent upon the introduction of evidence demonstrating that there has been an actual slip in the retention pond that resulted in an encroachment upon their property. For the reasons discussed above, the petitioners failed to offer such evidence and, without such evidence, there can be no fraud, constructive fraud, or negligence in failing to 25 In the syllabus of Thacker, we held, in part, that [w]here a vendor is aware of defects or conditions which substantially affect the value or habitability of the property and the existence of which are unknown to the purchaser and would not be disclosed by a reasonably diligent inspection, then the vendor has a duty to disclose the same to the purchaser. Thacker, 171 W.Va. at 110, 297 S.E.2d at 885. 26 In Lengyel, we stated that “[a]n action for fraud may lie where the defendant either knows the statement to be false, makes the statement without knowledge as to its truth or falsity, or makes it under circumstances such that he should have known of its falsity.” Lengyel, 167 W.Va. at 277, 280 S.E.2d at 69. 16 disclose an allegedly known defect, nor breach of an implied contract.27 As the circuit court found, the petitioners “received the benefit of their bargain[;]” they visited the property prior to purchasing it; were aware of the adjacent retention pond; and claimed that the alleged “slip” occurred prior to their purchase of the property.28 Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the petitioners, we find that the petitioners failed to offer evidence by affidavit, or otherwise, which would support a finding on their claims against the Sterners and WHR under either Thacker or Lengyel.29 Accordingly, we find no error in the circuit court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of these respondents on the petitioners’ claims against them. 27 Although the circuit court does not specifically rely upon this failure in the petitioners’ evidence in addressing their claims against the Sterners and WHR in its summary judgment order, “a grant of summary judgment may be sustained on any basis supported by the record. Thus, it is permissible for us to affirm the granting of summary judgment on bases different or grounds other than those relied upon by the circuit court.” Harper v. Smith, __ W.Va. , 753 S.E.2d 612, 617 (2012) (citing Gentry v. Mangum, Inc., 195 W.Va. 512, 519, 466 S.E.2d 171, 178 (1995)). 28 Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that the petitioners had evidence of a slip in the retention pond and a resultant encroachment, they still offered no affirmative evidence to support their fraud claims so as to contradict the Sterners’ and WHR’s denial of any knowledge of an alleged encroachment. Neighborhood rumors and unauthenticated and nonspecific HOA meeting minutes are conjectural and wholly insufficient to withstand summary judgment. See Precision Coil, 194 W.Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329. 29 See supra notes 25 and 26. 17