Glenville Ratliff v. R.T. Rogers Oil Company, 16-1048

Glenville Ratliff was a 90% shareholder of C&G Corporation, which purchased fuel from R.T. Rogers and borrowed money from it; C&G later entered bankruptcy and discharged an $80,000 debt owed to R.T. Rogers.
R.T. Rogers sued Ratliff individually seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold him personally liable for the discharged debt.
At a March 2016 jury trial the jury found the first prong for piercing the veil satisfied (unity of interest/ownership) but did not find that holding Ratliff liable was required to avoid inequity; the jury returned a verdict for Ratliff.
R.T. Rogers moved for a new trial under Rule 59; the circuit court granted the new trial, concluding the jury’s fairness/inequity finding was against the weight of the evidence given commingling, inadequate capitalization, and disregard of corporate formalities.
Ratliff appealed, arguing the circuit court erred by failing to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 59(d).
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed, holding Rule 59(d) did not apply because the new-trial order responded to a party’s motion (Rule 59(a)), and finding the circuit court made adequate findings and did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred by not making required findings under Rule 59(d) when granting a new trial	Rogers: not applicable issue — court responded to Rogers’ motion; sufficient findings were made	Ratliff: court failed to specify findings/conclusions as required by Rule 59(d)	Court: Rule 59(d) inapplicable because new trial granted on Rogers’ motion (Rule 59(a)); findings were adequate; affirmed
Whether the circuit court properly granted a new trial because the jury’s finding on inequity was against the weight of the evidence	Rogers: evidence showed commingling, inadequate capitalization, disregard of formalities, producing unfairness — judge may weigh credibility and grant new trial	Ratliff: jury verdict should stand; judge failed to explain why his view was superior	Court: trial judge may set aside verdict if against clear weight of evidence; circuit court reasonably concluded inequity prong unsupported by evidence and did not abuse discretion
Correct standard of review for granting a new trial	Rogers: N/A (asked court to apply standards allowing judge to weigh evidence)	Ratliff: N/A	Court: new-trial rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; underlying factual findings for clear error; questions of law de novo

Laya v. Erin Homes, Inc., 177 W.Va. 343, 352 S.E.2d 93 (1986) (articulates the two-prong test for piercing the corporate veil in contract cases)
In re State Public Building Asbestos Litigation, 193 W.Va. 119, 454 S.E.2d 413 (1994) (trial judge may set aside a jury verdict and grant a new trial when verdict is against clear weight of the evidence)
Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 194 W.Va. 97, 459 S.E.2d 374 (1995) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for new-trial rulings; clear-error for factual findings; de novo for law)
Williams v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., 215 W.Va. 15, 592 S.E.2d 794 (2003) (applies the two-pronged deferential review and reiterates standards for new-trial review)