Hopkins v. DC Chapman Ventures, Inc.
228 W. Va. 213
| W. Va. | 2011Background
- Boundary dispute between petitioners J.D. Hopkins and David Hopkins and DC Chapman Ventures, Inc. over the location of the boundary line.
- December 5, 2007 order found Dunlap’s survey most accurate for respondent’s tract and that petitioners adversely possessed a portion of the encroachment area; required a new survey reflecting the court’s findings.
- May 19, 2008 order clarified and adopted findings from the February 19, 2008 hearing; reiterated the boundary as limited to the encroachment area surrounding the 40s Building.
- December 2, 2009 survey completed by petitioners’ surveyor Schafer; respondent objected as it did not comport with the court’s prior orders.
- May 3, 2010 hearing; July 9, 2010 order directed a new survey because Schafer’s survey did not reflect the court’s findings of adversely possessed area.
- Petitioners appealed; circuit court’s July 9, 2010 order was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to alter the 2007 order by the 2010 order | Hopkins argues lack of jurisdiction to modify final judgment | Chapman contends the 2010 order merely clarified, not altered, prior findings | No reversible error; court clarified without changing prior findings; invited error waived |
| Whether Chapman waived objections to the December 2, 2009 survey | Hopkins asserts Chapman waived by not raising earlier objections during appellate briefs | Chapman asserts waiver does not apply; objection sought to align with prior orders | Waiver inapplicable; objection timely raised when survey completed after appellate process |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. Goodman, 147 W.Va. 513, 129 S.E.2d 138 (1963) (invited error principle; cannot complain of error invited by party)
- Maples v. West Virginia Dep’t of Commerce, 197 W.Va. 318, 475 S.E.2d 410 (1996) (raised or waived error doctrine applies to invited error)
- State v. Crabtree, 198 W.Va. 620, 482 S.E.2d 605 (1996) (invited error; cannot benefit from error it invited)
- Shamblin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 183 W.Va. 585, 396 S.E.2d 766 (1990) (invited error doctrine; fairness and judicial economy)
- Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W.Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996) (abuse of discretion standard; review of final order)
- Kester v. Small, 217 W.Va. 371, 618 S.E.2d 380 (2005) (circuit court may correct orders to reflect original intent under Rule 60(a))