Thomas A. Haynes v. Antero Resources and Eddie Rush Southern, 15-1203

Background

The dispute concerns ownership of a 1/240th mineral interest in Harrison County originally from an 1898 lease; Presley Rush Southern held a 1/80th share at his 1951 death, which was split among his widow and three children, with the widow retaining a life estate.
From 1960–1987 the county assessor assessed and the widow paid taxes on the 1/80th interest; in 1988 separate assessments were also placed on each heir’s fractional interests, including Respondent Southern’s 1/240th share, but the widow’s assessment remained and she continued paying taxes through 2004.
Respondent Southern did not pay his 1988 tax ticket; in 1994 Harrison County sold his 1/240th interest at a tax sale to petitioner’s father (deed recorded 1994); petitioner later inherited that interest and sought royalties after Antero began production in 2014.
Antero paid royalties to Respondent Southern (not petitioner) for the producing well; petitioner sued for declaratory judgment, and cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
The circuit court granted summary judgment for Antero and Respondent Southern, concluding the widow’s tax payments satisfied the duplicate assessment and made Respondent Southern’s taxes not delinquent, rendering the 1994 tax deed void; the court denied petitioner’s Rule 59(e) motion and this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1988 assessments produced a "double assessment" making Respondent Southern’s tax sale void	Hayes: §11-4-9 and later statutory changes allow multiple assessments where interests are distinct; tax sale valid because Southern’s assessment was separate and unpaid	Antero/Southern: widow’s life-estate encompassed Southern’s fractional interest; payments by widow satisfied the single required tax	Court: assessments were duplicate; widow’s payment satisfied tax; Southern’s taxes were not delinquent and the 1994 tax sale was void
Whether Allen/Low are overruled by post-1992 statutory or constitutional changes	Hayes: legislative and constitutional amendments (cited generally) undermine Allen/Low	Antero/Southern: Allen/Low remain controlling and apply to duplicate assessments	Court: Hayes failed to show overruling; Allen and Low govern and support voiding duplicate-assessment sales
Whether taxpayers or officials were required to use statutory remedies to eliminate a double assessment before a tax sale	Hayes: county should have used §11-3-23/24/25 remedies to correct double assessment	Antero/Southern: no statute required pursuing those remedies; lack of pursuit doesn’t validate a void sale	Court: No authority requires exhausting those remedies; failure to seek them does not cure a sale that was void because taxes were not delinquent
Whether statutes of limitation or procedural statutes render the tax deed enforceable (e.g., §55-2-1, §11A-4-2, §11-3-1)	Hayes: various statutes limit challenges to tax deeds or provide remedies that should apply to his deed	Antero/Southern: duplicate-assessment doctrine produces deeds void ab initio and not subject to time-limited voidable-deed regimes; some arguments not preserved	Court: Challenges under some statutes were not preserved or inapplicable; void deeds from duplicate assessments have no statute of limitations; petitioner’s new arguments on appeal waived

Key Cases Cited

State v. Allen, 65 W. Va. 335 (1909) (payment on one of two assessments for the same land satisfies the tax and defeats a tax sale based on the other assessment)
State v. Low, 46 W. Va. 451 (1899) (payment by an owner or those entitled to pay defeats tax sale based on duplicate assessment)
Leslie Equip. Co. v. Wood Res. Co., 224 W. Va. 530 (2009) (‘‘Once void, always void’’—distinction between void and voidable tax deeds)
Wickland v. American Travellers Life Ins. Co., 204 W. Va. 430 (1998) (standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion is same as for underlying judgment)