W.Va. Department of Transportation, Div. of Highways v. Douglas R. Veach
239 W. Va. 1
| W. Va. | 2017Background
- In 1968 Anna M. Veach conveyed ~405 acres subject to a reservation "of all minerals underlying the tracts," which her heirs (the Veach Heirs) inherited in 2006.
- WVDOH excavated limestone from the Veach and nearby Newton properties during Corridor H construction (takes in April–May 2011).
- The Veach Heirs filed a mandamus to force condemnation; parties agreed DOH would file condemnation actions and mandamus was dismissed.
- Prior DOH counsel stipulated that the Veach reservation included limestone and gravel; an identical stipulation was made in the Newton case.
- Newton was tried first; a jury found for Newton and fixed limestone values; the verdict was affirmed on appeal (Newton I).
- After Newton I, DOH (with new counsel) sought to rescind the stipulations and moved for summary judgment arguing limestone is not a "mineral;" the Veach Heirs moved for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel and the prior stipulations. The circuit court granted Veach summary judgment, applied Newton’s limestone valuations, and awarded fees; the Supreme Court affirmed liability and interest timing but remanded the fee award for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Veach Heirs' Argument | DOH's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOH's prior counsel’s stipulations that the reservation included limestone should be set aside | Stipulations are binding; DOH pleaded same facts and voluntarily dismissed mandamus | Stipulations were improvident/contrary to law and should be rescinded (mistake of counsel) | Court refused to set aside stipulations—no evidence of fraud/mistake warranting rescission; prejudice to Veach and DOH had pleaded the ownership facts. |
| Whether Newton verdict and trial preclude relitigation (collateral estoppel) in Veach | Newton’s adjudication of quantity, marketability, and value (and stipulations on ownership) apply to Veach; estoppel appropriate | Properties differ; factual issues (feasibility, value, marketability) remain; DOH lacked full and fair opportunity on some issues | Collateral estoppel applied—issues were identical/fully litigated; takes were close in time and cases had consolidated pretrial proceedings. |
| Whether prejudgment interest should run from mandamus filing or condemnation petition | Interest should run from the mandamus petition date (Oct 12, 2010) | Interest should run from condemnation petition date (May 27, 2011) | Interest accrues from date of filing of the condemnation petition (May 27, 2011) per statutes governing condemnation. |
| Whether the circuit court properly awarded attorneys’ fees and costs without further proceedings | Entitled to fees (bad faith finding) and argued contingency contract relevant to amount | DOH argued it lacked notice/opportunity to be heard on fees and reasonableness | Fee awards reversed and remanded: DOH was not afforded notice/opportunity; trial court must hold hearing and apply Pitrolo factors to determine entitlement and reasonable amount. |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W.Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (de novo review of summary judgment) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (summary judgment appropriate only when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Conley v. Spillers, 171 W.Va. 584, 301 S.E.2d 216 (offensive collateral estoppel principles and limits)
- State v. Miller, 194 W.Va. 3, 459 S.E.2d 114 (four-part test for collateral estoppel)
- West Virginia Dep’t of Transportation v. Newton, 235 W.Va. 267, 773 S.E.2d 371 (Newton I) (affirmed valuation and noted stipulation that limestone was a mineral)
- Cole v. State Comp. Comm’r, 114 W.Va. 633, 173 S.E. 263 (setting aside stipulations for improvidence requires restoring parties to prior positions)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Pitrolo, 176 W.Va. 190, 342 S.E.2d 156 (factors for assessing reasonableness of attorney’s fees)
- West Virginia Dep’t of Highways v. Roda, 177 W.Va. 383, 352 S.E.2d 134 (date of taking for damages tied to legal proceedings; governs timing principles for condemnation)
- Faith United Methodist Church v. Morgan, 231 W.Va. 423, 745 S.E.2d 461 (interpretation of "surface" in conveyances; related property-division principles)