Louis A. Yancich v. New Life Clinics and James T. Bowen
20-0578
| W. Va. | Jun 23, 2021Background:
- Yancich filed suit alleging WPCA and related claims against New Life Clinics and its president; the contract contained an arbitration clause and the case was dismissed to arbitration in Dec. 2018.
- Parties instead mediated and executed a written settlement on July 22, 2019: respondents agreed to pay $40,000 and return specified personal property; the agreement included an express release waiving any claims for attorneys’ fees (including WPCA fees).
- Respondents missed the October 20, 2019 deadline; Yancich filed a motion to reopen to enforce the settlement and the court entered judgment on Nov. 13, 2019 enforcing the settlement (monetary judgment and replevin for property).
- Respondents eventually paid the monetary judgment and returned the property in April 2020; Yancich then moved for WPCA attorneys’ fees and costs.
- The circuit court denied the fee motion, relying on the settlement release waiving attorneys’ fees; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Yancich had enforced a settlement that expressly waived fee recovery.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforcement-judgment on the settlement negates the settlement’s fee waiver | Yancich: respondents breached the settlement, so the contractual waiver no longer bars WPCA fees | Respondents: court reopened case only to enforce the settlement; the waiver remains binding | Held: Waiver was enforceable; judgment enforced the settlement, including the fee waiver |
| Whether the court’s entry of judgment equates to a WPCA judgment entitling fees under §21-5-12(b) | Yancich: judgment on enforcement is equivalent to a judgment on the WPCA claim, so he "substantially prevailed" | Respondents: the underlying WPCA claim remained dismissed; enforcement judgment was limited to the settlement contract | Held: Judgment was on the settlement, not a substantive adjudication of the WPCA claim; no statutory fee award arose |
| Whether WPCA’s remedial purpose requires a fee award despite the release | Yancich: WPCA is remedial and should promote fee recovery to facilitate enforcement | Respondents: parties can contractually waive fee recovery; policy does not override an expressed waiver they negotiated | Held: Policy arguments do not nullify a clear, negotiated waiver that the plaintiff sought to enforce |
| Whether plaintiff may now repudiate the settlement he sought to enforce (invited error / equitable estoppel) | Yancich: allowing waiver to stand discourages settlement compliance and harms WPCA claimants | Respondents: plaintiff sought enforcement of the agreement; cannot now disavow terms he asked the court to enforce | Held: Plaintiff cannot undo the agreement he enforced; invited-error doctrine bars reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Clendenin Lumber & Supply Co., Inc. v. Carpenter, 172 W. Va. 375 (W. Va. 1983) (describing WPCA as remedial legislation)
- Noble v. W. Va. Dep’t of Motor Vehicles, 223 W. Va. 818 (W. Va. 2009) (appellate courts generally do not consider nonjurisdictional issues raised first on appeal)
- Corp. of Harpers Ferry v. Taylor, 227 W. Va. 501 (W. Va. 2011) (discretionary review of attorney-fee awards; abuse of discretion standard)
- Hopkins v. DC Chapman Ventures, Inc., 228 W. Va. 213 (W. Va. 2011) (invited-error doctrine prevents a party from asserting error they invited)