Winston Threadgill v. Donald Painter, Jr., 16-0419

Threadgill and Painter own adjacent parcels; Threadgill sued to establish a right-of-way across Painter’s land, which Painter denied.
Painter answered and counterclaimed for attorney’s fees; Painter moved to dismiss, and the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment.
On October 11, 2012, the circuit court granted Painter summary judgment, finding Threadgill had no right-of-way; Threadgill did not appeal.
On December 5, 2012, after a hearing on Painter’s counterclaim, the court awarded Painter $5,585 in attorney’s fees, finding Threadgill’s conduct vexatious; Threadgill did not appeal.
In September 2015 Threadgill filed a Rule 60(b) motion alleging fraud on the court by Painter’s counsel induced the adverse orders; at a December 2015 hearing Threadgill’s own witness contradicted him.
The circuit court denied relief (also finding the motion time-barred); the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, holding there was no fraud on the court and no abuse of discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Threadgill alleged fraud on the court sufficient for Rule 60(b) relief	Threadgill alleged Painter’s attorney made fraudulent misrepresentations that induced the summary judgment and fee award	Painter argued no fraud occurred and the underlying rulings were correct	Court: Allegations were sufficient in form to allege fraud on the court, but the record showed no actual fraud; motion denied
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Rule 60(b) relief	Threadgill argued the court should set aside judgments for fraud	Painter argued denial was within discretion given the evidence refuting fraud	Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed
Whether the evidence supports Threadgill’s claim of a right-of-way (merits)	Threadgill maintained he held a right-of-way over Painter’s parcel	Painter produced title-chain evidence and witness testimony showing the right-of-way belonged to Painter	Court: Record shows no right-of-way for Threadgill; supports denial of relief
Whether the Rule 60(b) motion was time-barred	Threadgill relied on the fraud exception (no filing limit)	Painter asserted delay and alternative timeliness defense	Court: Alternative ruling that motion was time-barred, but also held fraud exception has no filing limit; final disposition rests on lack of fraud

Toler v. Shelton, 157 W.Va. 778, 204 S.E.2d 85 (1974) (appeal of Rule 60(b) denial reviews only the denial order; abuses-of-discretion standard)
Savas v. Savas, 181 W.Va. 316, 382 S.E.2d 510 (1989) (fraud-on-the-court grounds in Rule 60(b) have no filing time limit)
Withrow v. Williams, 216 W.Va. 385, 607 S.E.2d 491 (2004) (distinguishing when attorney misrepresentations did not produce rulings made in reliance and rejecting fraud-on-the-court claim)