Opinion ID: 3180494
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Fiduciary Relationship

Text: Pickens contends that the circuit court committed error in entering judgment as a matter of law to the effect that a fiduciary relationship existed between Pickens and her mother from June 8, 1988, when the appraisement of the father’s Estate was filed, until Pickens was granted the General and Medical Powers of Attorney on July 7, 2000. Inasmuch as the validity of the General and Medical Powers of Attorney was upheld by the circuit court, and is not challenged in this appeal, the existence of a fiduciary relationship from July 7, 2000, until the mother’s death, and beyond through Pickens’s service as Executrix, is not in dispute. 11 Although the doctrine of laches was raised in the pleadings, and mentioned in passing in the petition before this Court, it has not been addressed in this appeal. Therefore, we decline to consider it. See Farmer v. Knight, 207 W.Va. 716, 722, 536 S.E.2d 140, 146 (2000) (This Court will decline to address an issue only casually mentioned in a brief.). 15 Pickens, thus, focuses on the period prior to July 7, 2000, wherein most of the transfers of the certificates of deposit in question took place. By July 2000, approximately sixty-four certificates were issued, mostly by the Putnam County Bank, in the name of the mother “or” Pickens. Pickens contends that all such transactions were carried out by her mother personally, without any influence or wrongdoing, and that Pickens’s relationship with her mother was familial, rather than fiduciary. Consequently, Pickens asserts that whether there was a fiduciary relationship prior to July 7, 2000, was a question of fact for the jury and that the consideration and entry of the judgment as a matter of law constituted error, particularly since the circuit court made the ruling at the close of Tribble’s and Sargent’s case-in-chief. A judgment as a matter of law, formerly known as a directed verdict, is authorized under Rule 50 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court’s standard of review pertaining to a judgment as a matter of law is noted in Smith v. First Community Bancshares, Inc., 212 W.Va. 809, 575 S.E.2d 419 (2002), syllabus point 5 of which states: ‘The appellate standard of review for the granting of a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law] pursuant to Rule 50 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo. On appeal, this Court, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant party, will sustain the granting of a [judgment as a matter of law] when only one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict can be reached. But if reasonable minds could differ as to the importance and sufficiency of the evidence, a circuit court’s ruling granting a [judgment as a matter of law] will be reversed.’ Syllabus Point 3, Brannon v. Riffle, 197 W.Va. 97, 475 S.E.2d 97 (1996). 16 Accord syl. pt. 1, Estep v. Mike Ferrell Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 223 W.Va. 209, 672 S.E.2d 345 (2008). See Franklin D. Cleckley, Robin J. Davis & Louis J. Palmer, Jr., Litigation Handbook on West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure § 50(a)(2) (4th ed. 2012) (A judgment as a matter of law should not be entered against a party “who has not been afforded an opportunity to present any available evidence bearing on a dispositive fact”). Pickens’s assertion of reversible error on the ground that judgment was entered on the fiduciary issue prior to her opportunity to present evidence is unconvincing. Pickens was called as an adverse witness during Tribble’s and Sargent’s case-in-chief, and the circuit court stated that it was entering judgment on the basis of her testimony. Nevertheless, the record demonstrates that the court’s ruling at that point in the trial was provisional. As the trial proceeded, the entry of judgment on the fiduciary issue was reconsidered three times, i.e., on January 29, 30 and 31, 2013. On January 31, 2013, the circuit court stated: I’ve heard all of the evidence in this case. I don’t see any evidence in dispute that there was a confidential relationship between Louise Pickens and Polly Pickens that existed, and I have used the date of the filing of the estate appraisement relating to the estate of Charles Pickens, which is June 8, 1988. And I believe at least at that date, and then going forward, uninterrupted, that [a] confidential relationship existed. It was merely formalized by the execution of the power of attorney and the medical power of attorney on July 7, 2000. The evidence ultimately considered by the circuit court included the fact that, prior to receiving the General and Medical Powers of Attorney on July 7, 2000, Pickens was familiar with similar business affairs. Pickens was named as the “preparer” on the appraisement form 17 for her father’s Estate. Moreover, she was granted a power of attorney in 1994 for an individual named Thelma Erskine. In addition, Pickens helped prepare a list of non-probate assets for an individual named Gladys Sayre who died in March 2000. Throughout her testimony, Pickens acknowledged that her mother trusted her and relied on her in financial matters. The judgment as a matter of law on the fiduciary, pre-July 7, 2000, issue was not finalized by the circuit court until after Pickens had the opportunity to present her evidence to the jury. The judgment was reconsidered and the evidence evaluated several times before jury deliberations began. In the September 5, 2014, order denying Pickens’s motion for a new trial thereon, the circuit court stated: “[T]here was no question of fact to be determined by the jury.” Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to Pickens, we agree with the circuit court and find no merit in this assignment error. Pickens’s remaining assignments of error must, therefore, be viewed in the context that the fiduciary relationship between her and her mother began in 1988 with the death of Pickens’s father.