Stiles Family Limited Partnership, III, LLP v. Riggs and Stiles, Inc. and Christopher Stiles, 16-0220

Stiles Family LLP (landlord) leased 169-acre farm to Riggs and Stiles, Inc. and Christopher Stiles (tenant) under a 2006 farm lease limiting use to planting, maintaining, and cultivating farm crops; other uses required landlord written approval.
In 2013 respondent Christopher Stiles allowed Walther Productions to file a seasonal use/variance application with the Jefferson County Zoning Board to explore holding a five-day, 15,000-person music festival on the farm.
Petitioner learned of the application, objected in writing to the Zoning Board, and attempted to terminate the lease; respondents continued farming and the application was withdrawn in December 2013; the festival never occurred.
In November 2014 petitioner sued for declaratory relief, alleging respondents breached the lease (and sought termination, injunction, constructive trust); respondents counterclaimed for attorneys’ fees and moved for summary judgment.
The Jefferson County Circuit Court granted summary judgment for respondents, holding that an application (later withdrawn) did not constitute a prohibited nonagricultural use or an anticipatory breach; only respondents’ fee claim remained pending.
The West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed, finding the lease unambiguous, no unequivocal repudiation, continued agricultural use, and withdrawal of the application defeating an anticipatory breach theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allowing/filing a zoning/variance application for a music festival breached the lease’s prohibition on nonagricultural use	Filing and permitting the promoter to apply was a prohibited use and breached the lease, allowing termination	An application is only a request; no actual nonagricultural use occurred and the lease was not breached	Filing (later withdrawn) did not constitute a prohibited use; no breach under the lease’s plain terms
Whether respondents committed an anticipatory breach by permitting the application	Permitting the application showed clear intent to repudiate lease restrictions—anticipatory breach does not require the event to occur	No unequivocal, absolute repudiation; respondents kept farming and the application was withdrawn, showing equivocation	No anticipatory breach: repudiation must be unequivocal and concern entire performance; respondents continued required performance
Whether the circuit court erred by reserving respondents’ claim for attorneys’ fees	Petitioner argued the reservation was improper on summary judgment	Respondents sought fees in counterclaim; circuit court left the claim unresolved	Court declined to decide fees on appeal; fee claim remains for circuit court to decide

Kanawha Banking & Trust Co. v. Gilbert, 131 W. Va. 88, 46 S.E.2d 225 (1947) (clear written contracts are enforced according to plain terms)
Mollohan v. Black Rock Contracting, Inc., 160 W. Va. 446, 235 S.E.2d 813 (1977) (anticipatory repudiation must be unequivocal, absolute, and positive)
Annon v. Lucas, 155 W. Va. 368, 185 S.E.2d 343 (1971) (options for injured party upon anticipatory breach)
Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Haden, 153 W. Va. 721, 172 S.E.2d 126 (1969) (clear and unambiguous contract terms must be applied)
Berkeley County Pub. Serv. Dist. v. Vitro Corp. of Am., 152 W. Va. 252, 162 S.E.2d 189 (1968) (whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law)
Sally-Mike Properties v. Yokum, 179 W. Va. 48, 365 S.E.2d 246 (1986) (general rule that each litigant bears own attorney’s fees absent statute or contract)