R.L. v. P.H.
16-0152
| W. Va. | Jan 20, 2017Background
- P.H. (nephew) and R.L. (aunt) lived in the grandmother’s Marmet, WV house; the grandmother was in a Kentucky nursing home.
- R.L. filed for a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) on Jan. 12, 2016, after an altercation; magistrate issued an emergency order and temporary possession to R.L.
- Family Court held a final hearing Jan. 20, 2016, found R.L. had legal possession via a durable power of attorney, and entered a 90‑day DVPO (to Apr. 19, 2016) with 30 days for P.H. to retrieve belongings and a 200‑foot no‑contact zone.
- P.H. appealed the Family Court DVPO to the Circuit Court (Feb. 8, 2016); the circuit court denied the appeal on Feb. 9, 2016 (circuit court found the appeal untimely).
- P.H. then appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court; the family court granted one 90‑day extension, and the DVPO expired by its terms on July 19, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal of the circuit court order denying P.H.’s appeal of the DVPO remains reviewable after the DVPO expired | P.H. raised substantive complaints about handling of grandmother’s finances/property and sought review of the DVPO and related issues | R.L. argued the sole cognizable issue was entitlement to the DVPO and that expiration of the DVPO rendered the appeal moot | Appeal dismissed as moot; no collateral consequences alleged and no public‑interest or recurring‑issue justification to decide the expired DVPO |
| Whether issues about grandmother’s finances/property are cognizable in DVPO appeal | P.H. urged review of those financial/property issues in this appeal | R.L. contended those issues are not cognizable in a domestic violence proceeding | Court: those claims are not properly before the DVPO appeal and were not considered |
| Whether the case meets exceptions to mootness (collateral consequences, public interest, or recurring/fleeting nature) | P.H. implicitly sought relief or guidance that might follow from reversal | R.L. argued none of the mootness exceptions apply here | Only the recurring/short‑duration factor could apply, but the court found no collateral consequences or significant public interest, so exceptions not met |
| Whether circuit court’s finding that P.H.’s circuit appeal was untimely affects appellate review | P.H. appealed circuit court denial to this Court | R.L. relied on circuit court’s timeliness ruling and statutory 10‑day appeal rule | Court did not reach merits due to mootness; circuit court’s timeliness finding remains dispositive at the lower level |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Lilly v. Carter, 63 W.Va. 684, 60 S.E. 873 (1908) (moot or abstract questions that will not affect parties’ rights are not cognizable)
- State ex rel. McCabe v. Seifert, 220 W.Va. 79, 640 S.E.2d 142 (2006) (reaffirming the prohibition on adjudicating moot questions)
- Israel by Israel v. Secondary Schools Activities Commission, 182 W.Va. 454, 388 S.E.2d 480 (1989) (three‑factor test for deciding whether a court should resolve technically moot issues)
- In re K.H., 235 W.Va. 254, 773 S.E.2d 20 (2015) (use of initials to protect sensitive identities in opinions)