Opinion ID: 1325965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriateness of Declaratory Judgment Action

Text: An additional argument raised by Mr. Matheny concerns the timeliness of the issue raised. Mr. Matheny maintains that the City of Bridgeport did not file its action until September 11, 2007, approximately seven months following Mr. Matheny's appointment. Mr. Matheny argues that this is contrary to the provisions of West Virginia Code § 8-14-7. The Appellees, however, argue that they appropriately and legally sought an opinion from the Circuit Court concerning Mr. Matheny's eligibility to serve as a commissioner and, therefore, declaratory relief prior to any removal or official action was the correct course of action. A declaratory judgment action is a proper procedural means for adjudicating the legal rights of parties to an existing controversy that involves the construction and application of a statute. West Virginia Code § 55-13-1 (2000) provides: Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed. No action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a declaratory judgment or decree is prayed for. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect; and such declarations shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree. Id. Additionally, [a]ny person ... whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a statute ... may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the ... statute ... and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder. W. Va.Code § 55-13-2 (2000). As Justice Cleckley explained in his concurring opinion to Cox v. Amick, 195 W.Va. 608, 466 S.E.2d 459 (1995), the Declaratory Judgment Act, W. Va.Code §§ 55-13-1 to -16 (2000), is designed to enable litigants to clarify legal rights and obligations before acting upon them. 195 W.Va. at 618, 466 S.E.2d at 469 (Cleckley, J., concurring). Thus, the principal purpose of a declaratory judgment action is to resolve legal questions. Joslin v. Mitchell, 213 W.Va. 771, 775, 584 S.E.2d 913, 917 (2003). Despite the Appellant's contention that the Appellees were attempting to remove the Appellant from his position as a commissioner and, therefore, the Appellees had to comply with the provisions of West Virginia Code § 8-14-7 [5] concerning removal of a commissioner, we find from our review of the record in this case that such is not the case. This action was brought as a declaratory judgment action whereby the Appellees were seeking a declaration of the meaning of a specific statute in an action where both the Appellees and the Appellant were interested parties. W. Va.Code § 55-13-2. Consequently, this Court disagrees with the Appellant's argument on this issue and concludes that the declaratory judgment was properly pursued and the Circuit Court properly issued its ruling in the action.