Opinion ID: 1333326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Applicability of Demurrer to Petition for Mandamus

Text: Before reaching the substantive issues raised by the parties, we take this opportunity to address the procedural requirements for challenging the legal sufficiency of a petition for a writ of mandamus. In the case sub judice, Marrowbone and Hatfield challenged the legal sufficiency of Cable's PETITION FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF by filing demurrers pursuant to W. Va.Code § 56-4-36 (1923) (Repl.Vol.1997). Although demurrer has been abolished by Rule 7(c) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, demurrer was appropriate in this particular instance. At the time of the proceedings in the lower court, the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply to extraordinary remedies, with the exception of three rules. [9] W.Va.R.Civ.P. Rule 81(a)(5). Therefore, demurrer was not abolished with regard to extraordinary remedies. However, in recent amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, which became effective on April 6, 1998, Rule 81(a)(5) was repealed. Moreover, a new rule expressly stating that [t]he West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure govern the procedure for the application for, and issuance of, extraordinary writs was adopted as part of the 1998 amendments. W.Va.R.Civ.P. Rule 71B(a). Consequently, under the current rules, demurrer is not available to challenge a petition for a writ of mandamus, or other extraordinary remedy. Rather, the appropriate method of challenging the legal sufficiency of a petition for an extraordinary writ is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a Rule 12(c) [m]otion for judgment on the pleadings or a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Wilfong v. Wilfong, 156 W.Va. 754, 197 S.E.2d 96 (1973). See also Barker v. Traders Bank, 152 W.Va. 774, 778, 166 S.E.2d 331, 334 (1969) (observing that Rules 12(b)(6), 12(c) and 56 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure are closely related and together replace demurrers). We therefore hold that, W.Va.Code § 56-4-36 (1923) (Repl.Vol.1997) is superseded by Rule 7(c) and Rule 71B(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure insofar as that statute relates to extraordinary remedies. Thus, demurrer is no longer available to challenge a petition for an extraordinary remedy. To be proper, a challenge to the legal sufficiency of a petition for an extraordinary remedy must be made in the form of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, or a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. B.