Nina Schwartz Irrevocable Trust v. Jacqueline Ingram
16-0135
| W. Va. | Nov 18, 2016Background
- Merchants Mortgage obtained a $615,000 judgment against Reuben and Beulah Schwartz in D.C. in February 1969; the Nina Schwartz Irrevocable Trust (Trust) acquired the judgment in 2003.
- Reuben died in 1990 and Beulah in 2003; their four children (respondents) are the intestate heirs and own the 86-acre Tyler County, WV property in equal one‑fourth shares.
- The Trust domesticat ed the 1969 D.C. judgment in Tyler County and filed a Notice of Foreign Judgment on March 5, 2014, then sought a writ of execution against the property.
- Respondents filed a Verified Petition for Establishment of Descent and sought a declaration that the property is owned by them free and clear of the judgment; the matters were consolidated and cross‑summary judgment motions followed.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for respondents on January 14, 2016, holding enforcement was barred by the applicable statute of limitations (under D.C. law and alternatively under W.Va. law); it also rejected the Trust’s adverse‑possession claim based on tax payments.
- The Trust appealed, arguing (1) the statute‑of‑limitations issue was not properly raised below and (2) the judgment had been revived in 2004, so the limitations period had not run.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court could grant summary judgment sua sponte on statute‑of‑limitations grounds | Trust: respondents did not timely raise limitations; court lacked notice | Respondents: they raised limitations in an August 19, 2014 filing giving notice | Held: no error — respondents gave reasonable notice; sua sponte grant permitted under Loudin exception |
| Whether D.C. statute of limitations barred enforcement of the 1969 judgment | Trust: judgment was later revived/renewed (most recently 2004), so action in 2014 was timely | Respondents: under D.C. law execution had to issue within a year and a day of 1969 judgment absent valid revival; no such execution or continuous demand shown | Held: barred — last valid revival was 1992; under Galt rule execution must have occurred within year and a day or judgment required scire facias revival |
| Whether W.Va. limitations (10‑year execution rule) allows enforcement | Trust: 2004 renewal/revival restarted WV ten‑year enforcement period | Respondents: no valid renewals or executions within WV ten‑year windows; enforcement untimely | Held: alternatively barred under W.Va. §38‑3‑18; no valid renewals or executions to extend time |
| Whether Trust obtained title by adverse possession via paying property taxes | Trust: payment of taxes evidences possession supporting adverse‑possession claim | Respondents: tax payments alone insufficient to establish adverse possession | Held: court rejected adverse‑possession claim; tax payments alone did not satisfy required elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Oakley v. Wagner, 189 W. Va. 337, 431 S.E.2d 676 (W. Va. 1993) (foreign‑judgment enforcement governed by foreign law where that law bars the action)
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (W. Va. 1994) (summary‑judgment rulings reviewed de novo)
- Loudin v. Nat'l Liab. & Fire Ins. Co., 228 W. Va. 34, 716 S.E.2d 696 (W. Va. 2011) (trial court may grant summary judgment sua sponte if adverse party has reasonable notice and opportunity to respond)