Mark C. Busack v. West Rentals, Inc., 16-0900

Mark C. Busack (plaintiff) rented 260 Bethany Pike and entered a July 24, 2013 installment land contract to buy that property and 375 Oglebay Drive from West Rentals, Inc. (defendant).
The installment contract prevented assignment and limited leasing; title would not transfer until purchaser fulfilled all obligations.
Busack later pled guilty to federal offenses for activities run from 260 Bethany Pike and was incarcerated; a termination agreement was executed on June 8, 2015, that "terminated, cancelled, and rescinded" the 2013 installment land contract and released Busack from further tax/fee obligations.
In January 2016 Busack sued West Rentals alleging failure to disclose a ground slip at 375 Oglebay Drive, seeking damages, but his complaint did not mention the June 8, 2015 termination agreement.
West Rentals moved for summary judgment attaching the original installment contract and the termination agreement; the circuit court granted summary judgment on June 24, 2016, relying on the termination agreement and the contract terms.
Busack appealed, arguing termination was invalid (breach of post-termination tenancy promises and coercion) and that the circuit court rushed summary judgment; the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the June 8, 2015 termination agreement extinguished Busack's claims under the July 24, 2013 installment contract	Busack conceded the agreement existed but argued subsequent breaches/coercion rendered it invalid, so the 2013 contract remained operative	The termination agreement validly terminated and rescinded the 2013 contract; Busack omitted the agreement from his complaint	The court held the termination agreement terminated/rescinded the 2013 contract and defeated Busack's claim
Whether Busack's post-filing allegations (coercion and breach) could save his complaint given he omitted the termination agreement	Busack claimed he lacked time to raise those defenses because the court granted summary judgment two days after the motion	West Rentals noted Busack omitted the termination agreement from the complaint and belatedly asserted invalidity without factual support	The court found Busack had knowledge of the grounds earlier, his omission was tactical, and self-serving, unsupported assertions do not defeat summary judgment; any timing error was harmless

Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo and record must preclude any rational finding for nonmoving party)
Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (W. Va. 1995) (opposing party should be given adequate time to respond to summary-judgment motion; self-serving assertions without factual basis insufficient)
Par Mar v. City of Parkersburg, 183 W. Va. 706, 398 S.E.2d 532 (W. Va. 1990) (liberal pleading rules do not justify baseless pleadings)