Court Opinion

ID: 9550420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:35:02.27933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:31.186178
License: Public Domain

WALTERS, Justice, dissenting. I join in Justice Ransom’s dissent; and for another reason I cannot agree with the majority opinion. It reaches a result based upon this Court’s finding that we were misled in the prior appeal. There had not yet been a finding by a trial judge when Jose de la Luz (Joe) Moya lied regarding knowledge of the summons. Was it earlier when the default was set aside, or was it in the instant case now on appeal? Did Joe regret conveying half of his interest to his attorneys, and was that a motive for him to lie in this case rather than in the earlier matter? Those are questions of fact that should be decided upon a trial resulting from the penury issue, and not by this Court. I am concerned with the majority’s ignoring, in its opinion, the trial court’s determination of the respective interests in the property. The trial judge awarded 92.5% of the property to Jose Manuel Montoya, and 7.5% to Strand and Van Amberg, apparently upon an erroneous determination that the disclaimers of other siblings operated as a deed to Jose Manuel and his wife. As a matter of fact, those siblings disclaimed any adverse interest in the land only insofar as Jose Manuel’s quiet title claim was concerned. They made no claim for or against any interest to which Joe might have been entitled. A disclaimer is not a conveyance; it is nothing more than a disavowal of any and all right or title to the property in controversy. Toppins v. Oshel, 141 W.Va. 152, 89 S.E.2d 359 (1955). Consequently, any other claimant in the lawsuit was as much a beneficiary of that disclaimer as was Jose Manuel. In 1977, after the default against him had been set aside, the district court awarded Joe a fee simple interest in the land with respect to any adverse interests that those same disclaiming siblings might have had. If that decision was the correct one, Jose Manuel had his mother’s 25% interest by deed and Joe, or Joe and Jose Manuel together, had the remaining 75% interest free of their siblings’ claims; and because Joe had deeded one-half of his interest to Strand and Van Amberg, who were permitted to intervene in this action to protect the interest they had obtained as an attorneys’ fee, I think the proper allocation of interest of the parties that the trial court should have made is: Jose Manuel 25% + 37.5% = 62.5% Strand and Van Amberg lk of 37.5% = 18.75% Joe % of 37.5% = 18.75% The case should be remanded to the trial court for factual findings regarding fraud, and then the court should also be directed to recalculate the respective interests of any of the parties. Unless there is some finding of participatory deceit on the part of the attorneys, a new judgment protecting the 18.75% interest they claimed against Joe, or damages equal to the value of that 18.75% should be entered in their favor against Joe Montoya.