Gregory Smith v. Mingo Co. Comm., Jim Hatfield, 16-0417

Background

In December 2006 the Mingo County Sheriff and Assessor filed a petition to remove Gregory Smith from the Mingo County Commission, alleging multiple statutory violations and misconduct related to auctioning county property, signing checks, payments to vendors, and employment decisions.
A three-judge panel held hearings, concluded Smith should not be removed, finding most alleged violations either unfounded or merely "technical," and this Court refused the appeal in May 2008.
Smith sought reimbursement of $82,705.88 in attorney’s fees and expenses by filing a writ of mandamus in July 2008 against the County Commission, County Clerk, and Sheriff.
The circuit court denied mandamus in March 2010 for failure to show a clear legal right; this Court reversed in 2011 and remanded, directing the court to apply the three-part Powers test for indemnification/mandamus.
On remand, the circuit court (April 6, 2016) found the record showed Smith violated W. Va. Code §§ 7-3-3 and 7-5-4 (delegation of auction duty and failure to sign checks), and concluded Smith failed to satisfy the Powers test—particularly the good-faith prong—so mandamus relief was denied.
Smith appealed; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the record does not establish he acted in good faith and therefore he lacks the clear legal right necessary for mandamus reimbursement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith has a clear legal right to reimbursement for attorney fees under mandamus (Powers test).	Smith: Even if statutory violations were "technical," his conduct arose from discharge of official duties and thus qualifies for indemnification; removal panel not required to find good faith.	Respondents: Panel and record reflect statutory noncompliance; no finding of good faith; Powers test unmet.	Court: Denied. Smith failed to show he acted in good faith, so the Powers first/mandatory prerequisite for indemnification/mandamus failed; no need to reach other prongs.
Whether the underlying removal action arose from discharge of official duties in which the county had an interest.	Smith: Actions occurred in course of official duties (e.g., procurement, payments).	Respondents: Record shows statutory breaches in carrying out duties, undermining entitlement.	Implicitly: Court treated misconduct findings as precluding a clear right despite official-duty context.
Whether the County has power to reimburse (express or implied authority).	Smith: County is authorized to reimburse under Powers syllabus point two.	Respondents: County authority exists but is not dispositive if other Powers prongs fail.	Court: Not dispositive here; because good-faith prong failed, authority to reimburse not reached.
Whether circuit court erred by not addressing remaining mandamus elements after finding first element failed.	Smith: Circuit court should have addressed duty and adequacy of remedy.	Respondents: All three elements must coexist; no need to address remaining once first fails.	Court: Agreed with respondents — unnecessary to address remaining elements after failure on first element.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Smith v. Mingo Cty. Comm’n, 228 W. Va. 474, 721 S.E.2d 44 (W. Va. 2011) (remanding for application of Powers test to Smith’s mandamus claim)
Powers v. Goodwin, 170 W. Va. 151, 291 S.E.2d 466 (W. Va. 1982) (articulating three-part test for indemnification/attorney-fee reimbursement for public officials)
Cooper v. Gwinn, 171 W. Va. 245, 298 S.E.2d 781 (W. Va. 1981) (elements required for issuance of writ of mandamus)
Harrison Cnty. Comm’n v. Harrison Cnty. Assessor, 222 W. Va. 25, 658 S.E.2d 555 (W. Va. 2008) (de novo standard of review for mandamus denials)