Opinion ID: 1286138
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Trial Court's Order and Majority Opinion Failed to Set out an Analysis of the Parsons Factors

Text: The appellants in this case filed a motion with the circuit court to set aside a default judgment. This Court recently has held that, [i]n addressing a motion to set aside a default judgment, good cause requires not only considering the factors set out in Syllabus point 3 of Parsons v. Consolidated Gas Supply Corp., 163 W.Va. 464, 256 S.E.2d 758 (1979), but also requires a showing that a ground set out under Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure has been satisfied. Syl. pt. 5, Hardwood Group v. Larocco, 219 W.Va. 56, 631 S.E.2d 614 (2006). The Parsons factors have been stated as follows: In determining whether a default judgment should be ... vacated upon a Rule 60(b) motion, the trial court should consider: (1) The degree of prejudice suffered by the plaintiff from the delay in answering; (2) the presence of material issues of fact and meritorious defenses; (3) the significance of the interests at stake; and (4) the degree of intransigence on the part of the defaulting party. Syl. pt. 3, in part, Parsons, 163 W.Va. 464, 256 S.E.2d 758. A review of the trial court's order in this case shows that it summarily held that the Appellants failed to show either good cause or excusable neglect in support of the relief requested[.] There is no discussion of the Parsons factors. Further, the majority opinion also has failed to perform an analysis of the Parsons factorsthe majority opinion simply adopts the ground for relief asserted under Rule 60(b)(4). The decision in Larocco has made clear that a challenge to a default judgment must include an analysis of the Parsons factors and any ground asserted under Rule 60(b). Consequently, in view of the manner in which I would have addressed the issue of service of process, I would reverse the trial court's order and remand the case so that the trial court could reconsider the motion to set aside. Finally, in remanding the case, I would have instructed the trial court to issue an order that included findings of fact consistent with Parsons and an analysis of any Rule 60(b) ground asserted by the appellants. Based upon the foregoing, and in light of the majority's contrary decision, I respectfully concur, in part, and dissent, in part.