SER Thornhill Group v. Charles E. King, Jr., Judge
759 S.E.2d 795
W. Va.2014Background
- Plaintiff George A. Roberts (Kanawha County resident) sued Thornhill Group, Inc. and Wally L. Thornhill in Kanawha County alleging breach of contract, age discrimination, retaliation, and unpaid wages arising from his employment as general manager at the Thornhill dealership in Logan County.
- Defendants (Thornhill Group and Wally Thornhill) are residents or have principal business in Logan County and moved to dismiss for improper venue under W. Va. Code § 56-1-1.
- Trial court denied the motion, reasoning Roberts accepted the employment offer in Kanawha County (via telephone at his home), he resided in Kanawha County, and his damages would be most acutely felt there; court also cited judicial economy for hearing non-contract claims in Kanawha.
- Defendants sought a writ of prohibition from the West Virginia Supreme Court arguing venue properly lies in Logan County under § 56-1-1(a)(1)–(2) (defendants’ residence/principal office) and because the cause of action arose in Logan County.
- Supreme Court reviewed the statute and precedent, found no record evidence the contract was accepted in Kanawha, held that the relevant inquiry is where the cause of action arose (here, the breach and manifestation of damages occurred at the Logan dealership), and granted the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under W. Va. Code § 56-1-1 | Roberts: venue proper in Kanawha because he accepted offer there and he lives there; damages felt there | Thornhill: defendants reside/have principal office in Logan and the cause of action arose in Logan | Held: Venue lies in Logan County; plaintiff's residence and alleged telephone acceptance do not establish venue when breach and damages arose in Logan |
| Effect of repeal of former § 56-1-2 on Wetzel tripartite test | Roberts: Wetzel tripartite test (formation, breach, damages) remains good law and supports multiple potential venues | Thornhill: repeal of § 56-1-2 undermines Wetzel-based multi-venue analysis | Held: Wetzel and its tripartite analysis remain controlling; 1986 amendments consolidated statutes but did not abrogate Wetzel or related precedent |
| Whether plaintiff's residence alone can establish venue | Roberts: plaintiff's residence supports Kanawha venue because damages felt there | Thornhill: plaintiff's residence alone is insufficient under statute | Held: Plaintiff's residence, without more, does not establish venue under § 56-1-1 |
| Sufficiency of record evidence that contract was accepted in Kanawha | Roberts: asserted oral acceptance in Kanawha (telephone) | Thornhill: no evidence in record of acceptance location | Held: No record support for acceptance in Kanawha; courts may decide only on record facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Wetzel County Savings & Loan Co. v. Stern Bros., 156 W.Va. 693, 195 S.E.2d 732 (W. Va. 1973) (articulates tripartite venue test for breach of contract: formation, breach, manifestation/damages)
- Banner Printing Co. v. Bykota Corp., 182 W.Va. 488, 388 S.E.2d 844 (W. Va. 1989) (holds 1986 venue amendments consolidated prior statutes and preserved venue principles about where cause of action arose)
- Hudgins v. Crowder & Freeman, Inc., 156 W.Va. 111, 191 S.E.2d 443 (W. Va. 1972) (record limitation principle: courts can speak only by their records)
- State ex rel. Riffle v. Ranson, 195 W.Va. 121, 464 S.E.2d 763 (W. Va. 1995) (writ of prohibition appropriate vehicle for venue disputes; appellate relief often inadequate)
- State ex rel. Hoover v. Berger, 199 W.Va. 12, 483 S.E.2d 12 (W. Va. 1996) (factors to consider in granting writ of prohibition)
- McGuire v. Fitzsimmons, 197 W.Va. 132, 475 S.E.2d 132 (W. Va. 1996) (applies Wetzel venue analysis post-amendment)