Parks v. Mutual Benefit Group, 20-0065

Background:

On October 23, 2017, Eric Parks was involved in a car accident with Renee Dillow; Dillow’s insurer (Mutual Benefit Group) paid $5,089.11 and Dillow paid a $500 deductible, total $5,589.11.
Mutual Benefit sued Parks in Monongalia County Magistrate Court to recover the $5,589.11; the magistrate entered judgment for that amount.
Parks appealed to circuit court for a trial de novo under W. Va. Code § 50-5-12(d).
In magistrate proceedings, Mutual served requests for admission on Parks, which Parks did not answer; at the circuit de novo bench trial, Mutual moved for judgment as a matter of law based on those unresponded requests.
The circuit court deemed the matters admitted and granted judgment as a matter of law without allowing Parks to present his defense; Parks appealed to this Court.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether requests for admission are a permissible discovery method in magistrate court	Rule 13 limits discovery methods in magistrate courts; requests for admission are not authorized	Served requests for admission were effective and the failures to answer constituted admissions	Requests for admission are not a proper form of discovery in magistrate courts; Rule 13 is exclusive
Whether Rules 26–37 (including Rule 36 requests for admission) apply on de novo circuit-court appeal from magistrate court	Rule 81 bars use of Rules 26–37 on appeals from magistrate court, so those discovery tools are unavailable on de novo appeal	Mutual implicitly argued circuit court could treat the magistrate-served requests as operative in the de novo trial	Rule 81 precludes Rules 26–37 on appeals from magistrate court; requests for admission under Rule 36 are not available in the de novo circuit-court proceeding
Whether the circuit court properly granted judgment as a matter of law based on the deemed admissions	Parks argued he was entitled to present evidence at the de novo trial and the motion should have been denied	Mutual argued the unresponded requests established facts supporting judgment as a matter of law	Circuit court erred: it relied on improperly used requests for admission and denied Parks the opportunity to present his defense; judgment reversed and remanded
Standard of review for a judgment as a matter of law in a bench (de novo) trial	De novo review applies; evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant	Respondent did not dispute application of Rule 50/52 standard	Court confirmed de novo standard under Rule 52 (bench trial), per Waddy v. Riggleman

Key Cases Cited

Waddy v. Riggleman, 216 W. Va. 250, 606 S.E.2d 222 (2004) (sets de novo standard for judgment as a matter of law in bench trials)
Brannon v. Riffle, 197 W. Va. 97, 475 S.E.2d 97 (1996) (standard for JMOL on appeal)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (enforces plain-language application of procedural rules)
State ex rel. Veard v. Miller, 238 W. Va. 333, 795 S.E.2d 55 (2016) (discusses Rule 81 limits on discovery in magistrate appeals)
Cordell v. Jarrett, 171 W. Va. 596, 301 S.E.2d 227 (1982) (Rule 81 recognizes exclusion of Rules 26–37 on magistrate appeals)