Opinion ID: 1254483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mr Guido Lacks Standing To Raise Issues Relating To His Parents

Text: Mr. Guido has made the following additional assignments of error: (1) the circuit court lacked personal jurisdiction over Josephine Guido and John Guido d/b/a East Side Floor and Wall for the purpose of imposing a constructive trust on funds in their possession; (2) Josephine Guido and John Guido were denied due process of law by not receiving notice or an opportunity to be heard through their lawyer; (3) the circuit court erred in ruling that a constructive trust could apply against Josephine Guido and John Guido; and (4) the circuit court erred in finding that Josephine Guido and John Guido committed fraud. Ms. Guido contends in her brief that Mr. Guido lacks standing to present these issues. We agree. Section 3 of Article VIII of the West Virginia Constitution refers to the word controversy in discussing this Court's appellate jurisdiction. Clearly, Section 3 requires that a litigant have standing to challenge the action sought to be adjudicated on appeal. Standing, in turn, is comprised of three elements: First, the party must have suffered an injury-in-factan invasion of a legally protected interest. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct forming the basis of action. Third, it must be likely that the injury will be redressed through a favorable decision of the court. Coleman, 194 W.Va. at 95 n. 6, 459 S.E.2d at 372 n. 6. We held in syllabus point 2 of Burns v. Cities Service Company, 158 W.Va. 1059, 217 S.E.2d 56 (1975) that [a] party is entitled to prosecute a civil action as the real party in interest when he establishes an actual and justiciable interest in the subject matter of the litigation. It was noted in Snyder v. Callaghan, 168 W.Va. 265, 275, 284 S.E.2d 241, 248 (1981) that [i]n order to have standing... a party must allege an injury in fact, either economic or otherwise, which is the result of the challenged action[.] See also, Shobe v. Latimer, 162 W.Va. 779, 790, 253 S.E.2d 54, 61 (1979) (when a person's significant interests are directly injured or adversely affected ... such person has standing); Petition of City of Beckley to Annex, by Minor Boundary Adjustment, West Virginia Route 3 Right-of-Way Beginning at Present Corporate Limits, 194 W.Va. 423, 460 S.E.2d 669 (1995) (finding volunteer fire departments lacked standing to have review of administrative decision). In the instant matter it is quite clear that Mr. Guido lacks standing to bring any appeal issues which directly involve his parents. He has no justiciable interest in the claims of his parents. Simply put, Mr. Guido's parents could have intervened at the circuit court level. Mr. Guido's parents could have intervened as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. His parents chose not to intervene, even though Mr. Guido's mother testified at the contempt hearing. Also, Ms. Guido correctly notes that Mr. Guido's parents could have invoked Rule 22 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure in an effort to intervene before this Court. Mr. Guido's parents have not intervened before this Court. Therefore, insofar as the October 24, 1996 order determined interests concerning Mr. Guido's parents, that order was a final appealable order as to any adverse claims against Mr. Guido's parents. Furthermore, as Mr. Guido lacks standing to raise issues relating to his parent's claim, his appeal of the October 24, 1996 order is without merit.