Dale Rife v. Margaret A. Shields and Steve A. Rife, 15-0975

Background

Petitioner Dale Rife, and respondents Margaret Shields and Steve Rife each own a one‑third undivided interest in 0.42 acres in Wyoming County, WV; respondents sought partition by sale after locating a buyer and obtaining an appraisal.
Respondents filed a partition petition; they attempted personal service on Rife (a North Carolina resident) but ultimately used service by publication under Rule 4. Notices were published in newspapers (one in North Carolina, later notices in a Wyoming County paper).
Commissioners were appointed to value the property pursuant to W. Va. Code § 37‑4‑3; they reported the property could not be partitioned in kind and valued it at $36,000.
Rife did not appear at the April 1, 2015 final hearing; the circuit court entered default judgment on August 27, 2015, awarding respondents Rife’s one‑third interest and directing payment of his share into an interest‑bearing account.
Rife moved to alter/ amend (styled as a Rule 59(e) “re‑hearing”; the Court notes Rule 60(b)(4) was the proper vehicle), arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and other defects; the circuit court denied relief and this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Rife)	Defendant's Argument (Shields/Rife)	Held
Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction over nonresident Rife after service by publication under Rule 4	Service by publication under Rule 4 did not confer personal jurisdiction on a nonresident; judgment is void	Constructive service by publication was sufficient and proper here	Court reversed: Rule 4 publication alone did not establish in personam jurisdiction; default judgment void without statutory long‑arm proceedings
Whether denial of Rife’s motion to alter/ amend should be upheld	Court abused discretion by denying relief where judgment void for lack of jurisdiction	Denial was proper because publications were made and Rife had notice issues	Court found denial erroneous because lack of personal jurisdiction was dispositive; reversal required
Whether respondents followed statutory long‑arm procedure (W. Va. Code § 56‑3‑33) for nonresidents	Rife argued respondents failed to use statutory long‑arm method to obtain in personam jurisdiction	Respondents relied on Rule 4 constructive service instead of § 56‑3‑33	Court held respondents’ reliance solely on Rule 4 was insufficient and prevented establishing jurisdiction under § 56‑3‑33
Whether other claimed procedural defects (commissioners, valuation, notice) should be reached	Rife raised multiple procedural and factual objections to appointment, report, valuation, and notice	Respondents argued procedural steps and publications cured any defects	Court declined to reach these issues because lack of personal jurisdiction was dispositive

Key Cases Cited

Wickland v. American Travellers Life Ins., 204 W.Va. 430 (discussing standard of review for motions to alter or amend judgment)
West Virginia Dep’t of Transp. v. Dodson Mobile Homes Sales and Servs., Inc., 218 W.Va. 121 (same standard of review application)
Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va. 778 (motions under Rule 60(b) addressed to trial court discretion)
Leslie Equipment Co. v. Wood Resources Co., L.L.C., 224 W.Va. 530 (constructive Rule 4 service does not by itself confer personal jurisdiction over nonresidents)
Pries v. Watt, 186 W.Va. 49 (Due Process limits on state court jurisdiction over nonresidents)
Old Republic Ins. Co. v. O’Neal, 237 W.Va. 512 (Rule 60(b) standard reiterated)
Schweppes U.S.A. Ltd. v. Kiger, 158 W.Va. 794 (judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction is void)
Gentry v. Magnum, 195 W.Va. 512 (abuse of discretion standard and factors for reversal)