Court Opinion

ID: 9931439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 22:18:49.178532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:10.933063
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                            February 8, 2024
CHRISTOPHER R. STILES,
                                                                              C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner                                                INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                  OF WEST VIRGINIA

vs.) No. 23-ICA-82           (Cir. Ct. of Jefferson Cnty. No. CC-19-2021-C-177)

ESTATE OF STANLEY E. STILES,
JOHN STEVEN STILES, JOYCE L. RAWN,
MARY KATHERINE IAGER, AMY IAGER,
E. WILLIAM IAGER, NATHAN IAGER,
RACHEL B. ADAMS, MARY K. RAWN,
ANNE L. RAWN, JOHN STEVEN STILES, JR.,
ADAM STILES, AND MICHAEL STILES,
Defendants Below, Respondents

                              MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Christopher R. Stiles (“Petitioner Stiles”) appeals from the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County’s February 5, 2023, order granting summary judgment in favor of the
Respondents. The circuit court concluded that Petitioner Stiles’ complaint failed to show
that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding his allegations that the decedent
lacked testamentary capacity and was the victim of undue influence and/or duress when he
signed his last will and testament. The individual Respondents and the Estate filed a joint
response brief in support of the circuit court’s decision.1 Petitioner Stiles did not file a
reply.

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

       In this will contest, the decedent is Stanley E. Stiles. Petitioner Stiles is one of the
decedent’s four children. The Respondents include the decedent’s remaining three
children, his grandchildren, and the representative of his estate. The decedent lived in

       1
         Petitioner Stiles is represented by Christopher P. Stroech, Esq. The individual
Respondents are represented by Richard G. Gay, Esq. The Estate is represented by Kenneth
J. Barton, Jr., Esq.

                                              1
Jefferson County, West Virginia, and passed away on June 29, 2021, at the age of ninety-
three. A timeline of events is as follows.

        The decedent had a will drafted in 2008, wherein he distributed his and his late
wife’s belongings to all his children, in similar proportions. The decedent’s daughter, Joyce
Rawn, was named as the decedent’s power of attorney (“POA”) from 2006 to April of
2012. Petitioner Stiles was named as his POA on October 24, 2017. A second will was
drafted in 2019, by attorneys who had been involved with decedent’s estate planning for a
significant period of time. The 2019 Will solely benefitted Petitioner Stiles and failed to
distribute any of the decedent’s real estate to his remaining children or grandchildren. In
the fall of 2020, the decedent removed Petitioner Stiles’ name from his bank account and
added his other son, Respondent Steven Stiles, to the account. On January 6, 2021, the
decedent revoked Petitioner Stiles’ power of attorney. Then, on February 17, 2021, the
decedent retained a new attorney from Miles & Stockbridge for estate planning purposes.
On February 25, 2021, Dr. Khalid El-Sayed, at the direction of the decedent’s new attorney,
performed a forensic psychiatric evaluation of the decedent and determined that he had
testamentary capacity. On March 2, 2021, Respondent Steven Stiles, Jr., was appointed as
the decedent’s POA and representative for his living will. The decedent’s third and final
will was also executed on March 2, 2021. This Will was similar to the 2008 Will, wherein
most of the decedent’s property was distributed to his remaining children and
grandchildren, except that little was left to Petitioner Stiles because he had already received
his inheritance.2 None of the parties to this action were present at the signing of the 2021
Will.

       The 2021 Will was admitted to probate without protest and was later recorded.
However, after realizing that he would not inherit or be able to purchase the seventeen
acres that the decedent occupied until his death, Petitioner Stiles sought to impeach the
2021 Will, arguing that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and was the victim of
undue influence and duress caused by his siblings, the Respondents. Petitioner Stiles filed
his complaint on December 1, 2021. The decedent’s estate filed its answer on December
29, 2021, and the remaining Respondents filed their answer on March 1, 2022. Shortly
thereafter, Petitioner Stiles filed answers to the Respondents’ interrogatories, which
included text messages between the other siblings that Petitioner Stiles viewed as
“colluding” against him. On November 21, 2022, the individual Respondents filed their

       2
        Petitioner Stiles had already been gifted by the decedent a 170+ acre farm, a septic
seepage business which had earnings of approximately $70,000.00 per year, and full
ownership of Riggs & Stiles, one of the decedent’s companies. The decedent had told
multiple people (including his doctor and attorneys) that Petitioner Stiles had already
received his inheritance. Further, Petitioner Stiles admitted in his answers to interrogatories
that he had received everything the decedent stated that he had already received as his
inheritance.

                                              2
joint motion for summary judgment, asserting that there were no genuine issues of material
fact regarding Petitioner Stiles claims that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity or
was the victim of undue influence.

        On November 21, 2022, the estate joined with the other Respondents in their motion
for summary judgment. Petitioner Stiles filed a response to the motion for summary
judgment on December 8, 2022. On December 21, 2022, Petitioner Stiles filed a motion to
reopen discovery based on newly discovered text messages between his siblings. The
circuit court entered its Order Granting Summary Judgment on February 5, 2023. The
circuit court found that Petitioner Stiles failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact
existed regarding the decedent’s testamentary capacity and whether the decedent was
subjected to undue influence and/or duress.

        The circuit court found that Dr. El-Sayed, the forensic psychiatrist, as well as the
attorneys who assisted in drafting the 2021 Will, determined that the decedent had the
testamentary capacity. The order further found that J. Stephen McAuliffe, III, Esq., one of
the attorneys who helped draft the will, as well as the forensic psychiatrist, heard the
decedent tell Petitioner Stiles that he had already received his inheritance. Additionally,
the circuit court found that Dr. Cathy Funk, the decedent’s treating physician, believed the
decedent was competent each time she saw him between July of 2018 and May of 2021.
Dr. Funk stated that the decedent showed no signs of dementia and was mentally competent
to decide where he wanted to go for his final days before passing. Petitioner Stiles presented
no expert testimony to refute any evidence presented by the respondents. Petitioner Stiles
now appeals the February 5, 2023, order and argues that the circuit court erred in granting
summary judgment to the Respondents.

       We review a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment de novo. Syl. Pt. 1, Painter
v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). “A motion for summary judgment should
be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry
concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.” Syl. Pt. 3, Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fed.l Ins. Co. of N.Y., 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).
Additionally, a circuit court is not to substitute its judgment for that of a jury. “The question
to be decided on a motion for summary judgment is whether there is a genuine issue of fact
and not how that issue should be determined.” Id. at 160, 133 S.E.2d at 772, Syl. Pt. 5.

       Petitioner Stiles raises three assignments of error on appeal, which we will address
in turn. First, Petitioner Stiles asserts that the circuit court erred in granting summary
judgment on his claim that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity when he executed
his 2021 Will. Upon review, we disagree.

       The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has held that testamentary capacity
merely requires one “to understand the nature and consequences of his act, the property to
be disposed of, and the objects of his bounty.” Syl. Pt. 1, Payne v. Payne, 97 W. Va. 627,

                                               3
125 S.E. 818 (1924). Further, “[g]reater mental capacity is required to execute a deed or
contract than a will.” Syl. Pt. 4, Prichard v. Prichard, 135 W. Va. 767, 65 S.E.2d 65 (1951).
Additionally, “[t]he time to be considered in determining the capacity of the testator to
make a will is the time at which the will was executed.” Syl. Pt. 3, Frye v. Norton, 148 W.
Va. 500, 135 S.E.2d 603 (1964).

         Evidence was presented below that the forensic psychiatrist, the decedent’s
attorneys, the individual Respondents, and the decedent’s treating physician believed the
decedent to have testamentary capacity. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
has held, “The testimony of an attending physician or the lawyer who drafted the will is [.
. .] entitled to great weight on the question of mental capacity.” Floyd v. Floyd, 148 W. Va.
183, 196-97, 133 S.E.2d 726, 734 (1963). Floyd further says, “[a]lthough such evidence in
favor of a will is not conclusive, it must be clearly outweighed by other evidence in order
to support a verdict against the validity of the will.” Id. at 184, 133 S.E.2d at 728, Syl. Pt.
3. In the present case, the record reflects that Petitioner Stiles merely presented testimony
of himself, his wife, and his son. He chose not to depose or rebut any of the Respondents’
expert witnesses with his own expert witness. Thus, the circuit court did not err when it
held that the experts’ evidence was not outweighed and by granting summary judgment on
this issue.

       As his second assignment of error, Petitioner Stiles asserts that the circuit court erred
in granting summary judgment on his claim that the decedent was unduly influenced and/or
under duress when he executed his 2021 Will. Upon review, we disagree. Our Supreme
Court of Appeals has held that “[u]ndue influence, to invalidate a will, must be such
influence as destroys the free agency of the testator and, in legal effect, amounts to force
and coercion.” Syl. Pt. 14, Ritz v. Kingdon, 139 W. Va. 189, 79 S.E.2d 123 (1953). Further,
Frye states, “[i]n an action to impeach a will the burden of proving undue influence is upon
the party who alleges it and mere suspicion, conjecture, possibility or guess that undue
influence has been exercised is not sufficient to support a verdict which impeaches the will
upon that ground.” Syl. Pt. 5, Frye v. Norton, 148 W. Va. 500, 135 S.E.2d 603 (1964). In
the present case, the decedent’s treating physician testified in her affidavit that the decedent
was of sound mind and fully competent each time she visited him in his home, that he had
no symptoms of dementia or neurological brain disorders, that he was alert and oriented,
and that he was fully competent even during his last hospital stay prior to his death. In
contrast, Petitioner Stiles produced only broad statements about his suspicions that the
decedent had been unduly influenced and even testified that he was “speculating” that the
decedent had been subject to duress. Petitioner Stiles’ mere suspicions were insufficient to
create a genuine issue of material fact. As such, we find no error in the circuit court’s
granting of summary judgment on the issue of undue influence.

       As his third assignment of error, Petitioner Stiles asserts that the circuit court erred
when it refused to reopen discovery and permit him to engage in continued depositions of
the individual respondents based upon their supplemental discovery responses. In support

                                               4
of his argument, he states that he received many additional text messages that had been
exchanged between the Respondents, many of which were blurry but revealed evidence of
collusion between the siblings, and that additional time and further discovery were
necessary. Upon review, we find that this argument lacks merit. Rule 56(f) of the West
Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure states,

         Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the
         party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify
         the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or
         may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to
         be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.

Regarding Rule 56(f), our Supreme Court has held that,

         [w]here a party is unable to resist a motion for summary judgment because
         of an inadequate opportunity to conduct discovery, that party should file an
         affidavit pursuant to W. Va. R. Civ. P. 56(f) and obtain a ruling thereon by
         the trial court. Such affidavit and ruling thereon, or other evidence that the
         question of a premature summary judgment motion was presented to and
         decided by the trial court, must be included in the appellate record to preserve
         the error for review by this Court.

Syl. Pt. 3, Milmoe v. Paramount Senior Living at Ona, LLC, 247 W. Va. 68, 77, 875 S.E.2d
206, 215 (2022) (citing Syl. Pt. 3, Crain v. Lightner, 178 W. Va. 765, 364 S.E.2d 778
(1987). In the case at bar, Petitioner Stiles has failed to direct this Court to any affidavit in
the record regarding the need for additional discovery pursuant to West Virginia Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(f).

         Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court of Jefferson County’s February 5, 2023,
order.

                                                                                      Affirmed.

ISSUED: February 8, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear

                                                5