Bernard and Judy Webb v. City National Bank of West Virginia
16-0660
| W. Va. | May 19, 2017Background
- In 1995 City National made a mortgage loan to Bernard and Judy Webb; it was refinanced in 2002 with maturity in 2017.
- From 2002–2013 bank misapplied payments to principal only; in 2013 City National (erroneously) advised the Webbs their loan was paid and released the lien.
- Webbs sued City National in 2014 alleging payoff and improper application of payments; before the bank’s 2015 summary‑judgment hearing the parties reached a settlement.
- The circuit court entered a one‑sentence Agreed Order of Dismissal on July 2, 2015, dismissing the case without prejudice; the parties separately signed a Mutual Settlement Agreement on July 6, 2015 that said the agreement “shall be enforceable in the Circuit Court of Wayne County in the same manner as if entered therein as a consent decree.”
- City National moved to enforce the settlement after the Webbs refused to execute a new promissory note and deed of trust; the circuit court denied contempt and fees but granted enforcement, ordering the Webbs to sign the documents; the Webbs filed bankruptcy but the stay was lifted to allow enforcement; the Webbs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Webb's Argument | City National's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement after the Agreed Order of Dismissal | The Agreed Order dismissed the case without retaining jurisdiction; under Huston the court must expressly retain jurisdiction in its dismissal order or incorporate the settlement into the order, so the court lacked jurisdiction | The settlement expressly provided it was enforceable in Wayne County circuit court; dismissal was without prejudice and the circuit court (a court of general jurisdiction) could enforce the settlement | Court held the circuit court retained jurisdiction and enforcement was proper |
| Whether Huston controls and requires reversal here | Huston applies and mandates that, absent express retention in the dismissal, enforcement is improper | Huston involved federal/state interplay and courts of limited jurisdiction; West Virginia circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction, so Huston is distinguishable | Court held Huston not controlling and distinguished its facts |
| Whether enforcement deprived Webb of due process or jury trial rights | Enforcement of the settlement without a new action violated constitutional rights and entitlement to jury trial | Webbs agreed (in writing, with counsel) that the settlement could be enforced in circuit court; no genuine factual dispute on breach | Court found no due process or jury‑trial violation; enforcement appropriate |
| Whether fees, costs, or contempt were warranted | Webbs argued enforcement motion was improper and relief such as contempt/fees were unwarranted | City National sought contempt and fees for noncompliance | Circuit court denied contempt and fees; appellate decision affirmed enforcement but not fee/contempt awards |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Roselawn Mem’l Gardens, Inc., 152 W. Va. 91, 159 S.E.2d 784 (1968) (policy favors enforcing settlement agreements)
- Burdette v. Burdette Realty Improvement, Inc., 214 W. Va. 448, 590 S.E.2d 641 (2003) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing enforcement of settlement agreements)
- Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W. Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (de novo review applies to pure questions of law)
- Huston v. Mercedes‑Benz, 227 W. Va. 515, 711 S.E.2d 585 (2011) (court must expressly retain jurisdiction in its final approval order or incorporate settlement terms to retain jurisdiction)
- James M.B. v. Carolyn M., 193 W. Va. 289, 456 S.E.2d 16 (1995) (parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court lacking it)