Court Opinion

ID: 9927783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 22:44:24.878591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:14.630558
License: Public Domain

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
                           SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                              January 25, 2024
                                                                                C. CASEY FORBES, CLERK
Jay Folse,                                                                     SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner Below, Petitioner                                                       OF WEST VIRGINIA

vs.) No. 22-626 (Hancock County CC-15-2022-C-1)

G. Russell Rollyson Jr., Deputy Commissioner of Non-Entered and Delinquent Lands and
John B. McCuskey, State Auditor of West Virginia,
Respondents Below, Respondents

                               MEMORANDUM DECISION

        Petitioner Jay Folse appeals the Circuit Court of Hancock County’s order granting
Respondents G. Russell Rollyson Jr., Deputy Commissioner of Non-Entered and Delinquent
Lands, and John B. McCuskey, State Auditor of West Virginia’s (“Auditor”) motion to dismiss
petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus.1 Upon our review, we determine that oral argument
is unnecessary and that a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate.
See W. Va. R. App. P. 21.

        Petitioner purchased eight liens at an Auditor’s auction/tax sale in Hancock County, paying
less than $1,000 for the liens on October 28, 2021. On December 16, 2021, the forty-fifth day
following approval of the sales by the Auditor, petitioner sent an e-mail to the Auditor’s office
stating that he was giving Respondent Rollyson notice that he was seeking an extension to file the
notice to redeem forms for Hancock County and that he would pay a 10% fee online. Shortly
thereafter, petitioner paid $100 for the extension, plus a $25 fee required by West Virginia Code
§ 11A-3-52(e). In response, senior regulatory counsel for the Auditor’s office explained that the
clear statutory language refers to an individual sale/deed and that the $125 payment provided
would cover only one of the eight properties. Petitioner did not make additional payments related
to these properties to obtain the extensions for the remaining seven properties, so he received an
extension for only one property.

       On December 27, 2021, petitioner filed a “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus to
Compel Issuance of Certificate of Exemption” in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, seeking
an order granting him a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to issue a certificate of extension

       1
        Petitioner is represented by counsel Robert W. Bright, and respondents are represented
by counsel David P. Cook Jr.

                                                1
for each of the eight tax liens at issue. Petitioner also sought general and punitive damages as a
result of respondents’ alleged “bad faith refusal of a ministerial action.” Respondents filed a
motion to dismiss, pursuant to West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which the circuit
court granted by order entered on February 24, 2022. Petitioner appeals from that order, focusing
his argument on his contention that the “total amount” referenced in West Virginia Code § 11A-
3-52(e) refers to the total amount paid on a single day of an Auditor’s sale, rather than the “total
amount” for each lot or parcel.2

       “‘Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de
novo.’ Syllabus Point 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W. Va.
770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995).” Syl. Pt. 1, Jones v. Logan Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 247 W. Va. 463, 881
S.E.2d 374 (2022). Further, because petitioner sought a writ of mandamus, we consider the
following:

               “‘To invoke mandamus the relator must show (1) a clear right to the relief
       sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing relator seeks;
       and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy.’ Syllabus point 2, Myers v. Barte,
       167 W.Va. 194, 279 S.E.2d 406 (1981).” Syllabus Point 3, Harrison Cty. Comm’n
       v. Harrison Cty. Assessor, 222 W.Va. 25, 658 S.E.2d 555 (2008).

              “‘Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question
       of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of
       review.’ Syllabus point 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459
       S.E.2d 415 (1995).” Syllabus Point 4, Harrison Cty. Comm’n v. Harrison Cty.
       Assessor, 222 W.Va. 25, 658 S.E.2d 555 (2008).

Syl. Pts. 2 & 3, Cales v. Town of Meadow Bridge, 239 W. Va. 288, 800 S.E.2d 874 (2017).

       Petitioner’s argument regarding extensions is the same argument that he made, and we
addressed, in Folse v. Rollyson, No. 22-0169, 2023 WL 3963697 (W. Va. June 13,
2023)(memorandum decision) (“Folse I”), and we see no reason to deviate from the reasoning we

       2
           West Virginia Code § 11A-3-52(e) (2020) provides:

       Whenever a purchaser has failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth
       in subsection (a) of this section, the purchaser may receive an additional 60 days
       from the expiration of the time period set forth in subsection (a) of this section to
       comply with the notice requirements set forth in subsection (a) of this section if the
       purchaser files with the Auditor a request in writing for the extension within 30
       days following the expiration of the time period set forth in subsection (a) of this
       section and makes payment by U. S. currency, cashier’s check, certified check, or
       money order in the amount of $100 or 10 percent of the total amount paid on the
       day of sale set forth in § 11A-3-45 of this code, whichever is greater. The fee for
       issuing the certificate of extension shall be $25 made payable to the Auditor.

                                                 2
applied to that case.3 In Folse I, we found as follows:

       As this Court has found, the Legislature has carved out detailed statutes that
       regulate every aspect of the sale of real property for delinquent taxes and the
       redemption of such property. Archuletta v. US Liens, LLC, 240 W. Va. 519, 522,
       813 S.E.2d 761, 764 (2018). West Virginia Code § 11A-3-52(e) is essentially a
       reprieve for a purchaser who has not, for whatever reason, fulfilled his or her
       obligations set forth in West Virginia Code § 11A-3-52(a) necessary to secure a
       deed. Here, it is undisputed that petitioner paid only a single $100 payment, plus a
       $25 fee, in an attempt to obtain an extension for all [] of his purchases. West
       Virginia Code § 11A-3-45(a) (2000), specifically addressed in West Virginia Code
       § 11A-3-52(e), clearly provides for “each tract or lot” and the “payment for any
       tract or lot purchased at a sale[.]” Therefore, it is apparent from the plain language
       of the applicable statutes that the “total amount paid on the day of sale” refers to
       “each tract or lot.”

       West Virginia Code § 11A-3-52(b) (2000) directs that “[i]f the purchaser fails to
       fulfill the requirements set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the purchaser shall
       lose all the benefits of his or her purchase.”

Folse I at *2-3.

        Here, the circuit court concluded that petitioner had failed to state a claim and that no relief
could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations
contained in the petition for a writ of mandamus. We agree with the circuit court. Due to
petitioner’s failure to comply with the statutory requirements, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Petitioner fails to a show a clear right to the extensions sought; a legal duty on the part of
respondents to issue the certificates of extension; and the absence of another adequate remedy,
particularly in light of the fact that respondents promptly made petitioner aware that the $125
payment entitled him to an extension for only one of the eight purchases. We, therefore, affirm the
circuit court’s dismissal of petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

                                                                                             Affirmed.

ISSUED: January 25, 2024

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Justice Tim Armstead
Justice Elizabeth D. Walker
Justice John A. Hutchison
Justice William R. Wooton

       3
          Folse I dealt with petitioner’s payment of $100, plus a $25 fee, which he argued secured
extensions for five liens purchased at an Auditor’s auction/tax sale in Wetzel County, West
Virginia.
                                                   3
Justice C. Haley Bunn

                        4