Court Opinion

ID: 9856181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:39:55.262222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:21.789307
License: Public Domain

BROTHERTON, Justice,
dissenting:
In passing on the question of whether a rule change should be made retroactive, there are three factors to consider:
*447(1) The purpose to be served by the new rule;
(2) The extent of reliance which has been placed on the old rule; and
(3) The effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new rule.
See, e.g., Tehan v. United States, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L.Ed.2d 453 (1966).
In applying these considerations to this case, I believe the majority was unwisely expansive in their holding and I therefore dissent.
I will concede that the purpose to be served in this case, viewed in isolation, would merit a retroactive application. Illegitimate heirs, branded with a status which they had no control of, a status which has no basis on their merit as a person, were partially disinherited by prior West Virginia law. In Adkins v. McEldowney, 167 W.Va. 469, 280 S.E.2d 231 (1981) this Court prospectively corrected this wrong. In a perfect world it would be desirable to retroactively recover for these people all that rightfully should be theirs. Unfortunately, a court cannot correct all the errors of a sinful past without wreaking havoc on the future.
The free transferability of land in our society is necessary for growth and economic prosperity. Full retroactive effect of Adkins would leave land titles in a blur. Frustration over the uncertainties of titles could hinder land transfers and promote economic stagnation.
The majority opinion was not blind to this peril and set up some conditions to shield innocent purchasers. The shield is defective, however, this being the crux of my dissent. The Court’s syllabus, outlining the holding, reads as follows:
This Court’s decision in Adkins v. McEldowney, 167 W.Va. 469, 280 S.E.2d 231 (1981), is fully retroactive where there has been no justifiable and detrimental reliance upon the law invalidated therein; where the subject property has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value; or where the estate administration is subject to further resolution. (emphasis added).
The exception for justifiable reliance and transfer to an innocent purchaser go far to protect the innocent purchaser, but the last phrase of the syllabus, allowing a retroactive effect where the estate is subject to further resolution, has the capability to cause much mischief.
The majority opinion hints that W.Va. Code § 44-4-18 (1982) could be used to pry open finalized estates in circumstances where illegitimate children were disinherited under the pre-Adkins law. This clouds every property which has passed through an estate in the past ten years.1
All other courts who have decided this issue have wisely avoided such a result. I believe that the fair administration of justice and the reliance on the old law by innocent parties demands a more restrictive retroactive application of Adkins. I therefore respectfully note my dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Neely joins with me in this dissent.

. The applicable limitations period. See W.Va. Code § 55-2-1 (1981).