Morgantown Mall Associates v. City of Westover
16-0835
| W. Va. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Westover sought to annex ~102 acres of commercial property owned mainly by petitioners; county commission approved annexation by "minor boundary adjustment" on Oct. 2, 2013.
- Petitioners filed a verified complaint (Oct. 17, 2013) seeking injunctive relief, a writ of error to review the commission’s order, and a declaratory judgment challenging the annexation statutes; a preliminary injunction issued Dec. 2, 2013.
- Circuit court (July 31, 2015) held it lacked jurisdiction over the writ of error because petitioners failed to timely file a bill of particulars and the original record as required by W. Va. Code §§ 58-3-3, -4; petitioners’ interlocutory appeal was refused as nonfinal.
- Westover moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining declaratory and injunctive claims; the circuit court granted judgment on the pleadings and dissolved the preliminary injunction (Aug. 29, 2016).
- The circuit court found Westover complied with the seven statutory factors for minor boundary adjustment, the annexation was not a scheme or unlawful taking, § 8-6-5 is not void for vagueness nor an improper delegation, and no due process/equal protection violation occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review commission order (writ of error) | Petitioners argued their complaint contained sufficient objections and referred to a video record; delay in filing original written record was excusable due to transcription problems and a court order requiring a written record. | Westover and Commission argued statutory perfection requirements (bill of particulars and original record within four months) are jurisdictional and were not met. | Court: Petitioners failed to timely file the original record (and did not file a bill of particulars); statutory requirements are jurisdictional; court lacked jurisdiction over writ of error. |
| Lawfulness of annexation / alleged scheme | Petitioners argued Westover contrived transactions with other landowners to corral petitioners’ property, so annexation was not a genuine minor boundary adjustment. | Westover argued it satisfied statutory thresholds, tried voluntary annexation, and petitioners refused negotiations; no evidence of unlawful scheme. | Court: Discovery did not show a scheme; record supports that § 8-6-5 factors were met and annexation was lawful in objective and execution. |
| Void for vagueness / improper delegation (§ 8-6-5) | Petitioners claimed terms like "minor boundary adjustment," "effectively accomplished," and "best interest of the county" are unconstitutionally vague and delegate legislative power. | Westover argued statute provides sufficient standards and the county’s discretion over local concerns is permissible. | Court: Statute is not void for vagueness in all applications; reasonable constructions uphold constitutionality; not an improper delegation. |
| Due process / equal protection challenge to § 8-6-5 | Petitioners contended lack of explicit standards leads to arbitrary/discriminatory application. | Westover invoked presumption of constitutionality for economic/regulatory legislation and pointed to detailed statutory factors and procedural protections. | Court: Petitioners failed to overcome presumption; § 8-6-5 contains guidelines and procedural safeguards; due process and equal protection claims rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vance, 207 W. Va. 640 (2000) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for certain rulings, de novo for questions of law; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Pettry v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 148 W. Va. 443 (1964) (failure to file bill of particulars in appeals from county court is jurisdictional)
- In re Stonestreet, 147 W. Va. 719 (1963) (failure to timely file original record in appeals from county commission is fatal to jurisdiction)
- Tax Assessment Against Purple Turtle, LLC v. Gooden, 223 W. Va. 755 (2009) (appeal not perfected without timely record; jurisdictional requirement)
- Petition of City of Beckley to Annex, 194 W. Va. 423 (1995) (municipalities/counties have broad discretion in minor boundary adjustments where territory is contiguous)
- Garcelon v. Rutledge, 173 W. Va. 572 (1984) (void-for-vagueness standard — law invalid if persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at meaning)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (vagueness challenge to civil statute requires showing the law is impermissibly vague in all applications)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (vagueness challenge requires law to be incapable of any valid application)
- State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 W. Va. 740 (1965) (presumption of constitutionality for legislative acts and courts should construe statutes to sustain constitutionality)