Dale Anthony and Shatika Marie Campbell v. Annette Schoew
16-0306
| W. Va. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Petitioners Dale and Shatika Campbell bought Lot 33 in Twin Valley Estates in December 2014 and placed a double‑wide trailer on the lot as a residence.
- Respondent Schoew sued in January 2015, seeking removal of the trailer for violating restrictive covenants: (1) prohibition on structures "of a temporary character" as residences; and (2) a five‑foot minimum side‑yard setback.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Schoew on November 8, 2015, finding the trailer was temporary and located 1.47 feet from the side lot line, ordering removal by May 1, 2016.
- Petitioners filed a "motion for reconsideration" (treated as a Rule 60(b) motion) in February 2016, asserting newly discovered evidence: a February 4, 2016 quitclaim deed from the adjoining owner intended to cure the setback, and arguing the trailer had been made permanent (foundation, cancelled title).
- The circuit court denied relief on March 2, 2016: it held the deed did not change the relevant "side lot line" for covenant purposes and reiterated the trailer’s temporary character based on how it was brought to the lot.
- Petitioners appealed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Rule 60(b) standards and reviewing for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Schoew) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioners’ motion was governed by Rule 60(b) and thus did not toll the appeal period | Motion is a Rule 60(b) matter; denial reviewed for abuse of discretion | Motion styled "reconsideration" not invoking Rule 60(b); appeal should include November 8 order | Court: Motion is properly treated as Rule 60(b); appeal limited to denial order; abuse‑of‑discretion standard applies |
| Whether the trailer was a "structure of a temporary character" violating covenants | Trailer was temporary (towed on axles/wheels) despite later foundation and title cancellation | Trailer was made permanent by foundation, removal of axles/wheels, and reclassification | Court: Denial of Rule 60(b) relief affirmed; petitioners failed to present grounds (mistake/new evidence) to set aside judgment |
| Whether the trailer violated the five‑foot side‑setback covenant | Covenant prohibits any structure within five feet of any side lot line; survey shows 1.47 ft violation | Quitclaim deed to adjoining strip moved the effective lot line and cured the violation; deed is newly discovered evidence | Court: Deed did not alter the covenant’s "side lot line" concept; acquiring a sliver did not change applicable lot lines; denial affirmed |
| Whether petitioners presented newly discovered evidence or other Rule 60(b) grounds | N/A (Schoew opposed relief) | Deed and actions to convert trailer to real property constitute newly discovered evidence/other grounds | Court: Evidence was not the sort that could not have been used on direct appeal; no Rule 60(b) basis shown; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Malone v. Potomac Highlands Airport Authority, 237 W.Va. 235, 786 S.E.2d 594 (W. Va. 2015) (motions filed outside ten‑day Rule 59(e) limit are treated as Rule 60(b) motions)
- Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va. 778, 204 S.E.2d 85 (W. Va. 1974) (Rule 60 motions do not toll the appeal period; Rule 60 relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Builders’ Service & Supply Co. v. Dempsey, 224 W.Va. 80, 680 S.E.2d 95 (W. Va. 2009) (Rule 60(b) relief is concurrent with and independent of appeal)
- Burton v. Burton, 223 W.Va. 191, 672 S.E.2d 327 (W. Va. 2008) (a late motion that would qualify as Rule 59(e) is treated as Rule 60(b) and does not toll appeal time)
- Gentry v. Mangum, 195 W.Va. 512, 466 S.E.2d 171 (W. Va. 1995) (appellate court may affirm on grounds different from those relied on by the circuit court)