Stewart v. Johnson
549 S.E.2d 670
W. Va.
2001
Check Treatment

*1 case, when, instant six mem- as But conclude, community upon proper

bers despite the from Court

instructions persuade of the defendant

able efforts otherwise, badly plaintiff who that a

jury in fact made rea- by a defendant

mistreated job to find a new sonable efforts —then right an award to the to make has the will this Court sustain.

plaintiff that S.E.2d 670 Stewart, and Ron

Vera STEWART Below, Appellants,

Plaintiffs JOHNSON, Defendant

Dennis

Below, Appellee.

No. 28462.

Supreme Appeals Court Virginia.

West 23, 2001. Jan.

Submitted April 2001.

Decided

Dissenting Opinion of Justice July

Maynard 2001.

Concurring Opinion of Justice July

Starcher *3 Brewer, Virginia Legal

Nancy S. West Inc., Plan, Huntington, Ap- for the Services pellants. Se, Pro Hunt- Appellee,

Dennis ington.

PER CURIAM. Stewart, appel- Stewart and Ron Vera (hereinafter lants/plaintiffs below referred Stewarts”),1 ruling by appealed the as “the County granting the Circuit Court Cabell Johnson, appellee/defen- judgment Dennis (hereinafter “Mr. referred to as dant below 1. The Stewarts and wife. are husband

Johnson”).2 my premises contend in this vacate no than later tomor- appeal that circuit court committed error row. judgment by granting as matter of law signature alleged The note bore a that was denying Mr. Johnson and the Stewarts’ be that Mr. Johnson.

wrongful eviction claim. The Stewarts also following morning, February assign evidentiary rulings error to several an associate of Mr. Johnson Lou named Port- upon made court. Based Thereafter, er came to the Stewarts’ home. arguments parties’ appeal, the record des- premises Stewarts were told leave review, ignated appellate perti- day. noon The Stewarts left them authorities, nent we reverse the decision apartment to obtain truck to move their County. the Circuit Court Cabell belongings. When the Stewarts returned home, they found that all of belongings their

I. had apartment. been removed from them subsequently The Stewarts filed a com- AND FACTUAL PROCEDURAL plaint in seeking damages circuit court on HISTORY theory wrongful eviction.3 On March 1998, In October of the Stewarts entered 2000, 14, empaneled to hear the agreement into an oral with rental Mr. John- case. At the conclusion of the Stewarts’ agreement, son. Pursuant to the the Stew- ease-in-chief, granted the trial court judg- permitted apartment arts were to in an live ment as matter of law to Mr. Johnson.4 It by owned Mr. Johnson having without to proceeding is from this the Stewarts directly pay exchange, In rent. Mr. Stewart appeal. now agreed perform work maintenance on oth- by properties er rental owned Mr. Johnson. II. relationship The landlord-tenant between the Stewarts and Mr. Johnson came to STANDARD OF REVIEW February, During in end 1999. this time We are asked determine whether period, Mr. Johnson that Mr. learned Stew- the circuit court granting committed error pawned art had equipment some owned judgment against as a matter of law During argument, Mr. Johnson. oral Mr. Stewarts, and error whether was committed acknowledged Stewart’s counsel that Mr. regarding court several eviden- pled charge guilty Stewart to a misdemeanor tiary rulings. standard of review for The involving property. stolen this While Court ruling granting judgment as a matter law not in does condone Mr. Stewart’s conduct point Syllabus forth in set 3 of Brannon v. unlawfully stealing property, the Johnsons’ 97, (1996): Riffle, 197 97 W.Va. S.E.2d theft is not the issue this Court. The before appellate The standard of review for the issues this Court before relate to the Stew- granting [judgment of a motion as a wrongful arts’ eviction claim. pursuant matter to Rule 50 of law] evening February On the West Rules of Civil Procedure is Stewarts returned home and found a note court, appeal, de novo. On this after con- their door. The note read: sidering light the evidence in the most got your a warrant for arrest for party, sell- favorable to the nonmovant will sus- pawning my & granting [judgment tools. You need tain the as a matter counsel, initially pro- 2. Johnson retained but filed in case was thereafter court. pro appeal, ceeded to trial se. In this Mr. John- legal Johnson retained counsel file an answer proceeded pro son also se. Mr. Johnson complaint. Although to the circuit court -the however, appeal, represent file brief on he did proceeding circuit court claims, involved numerous during argument oral himself before this Court. appeal only this have Stewarts wrongful raised and briefed eviction issue. Initially, pro complaint the Stewarts se filed a magistrate pro court. Mr. filed a se pro during appeared 4.Mr. se the circuit magistrate complaint. answer to the The court trial. counsel, eventually Stewarts retained III. only reasonable conclu- when one law] But can be reached. sion as the verdict DISCUSSION differ as to if minds could reasonable evidence, sufficiency of importance and Judgment of Law as Matter A. ruling [judgment granting a circuit court’s presented evidence will law] as matter of be reversed. they had a month-to-month trial to show that regard, long have held that In we and that he failed tenancy mat- judgment as a [u]pon [for a motion proper notice ter provide to them before defendant, every reason- law] ter of for the Granting judgment as tenancy. minating the legitimate fairly arising inference able and law, the circuit court ruled a matter of testimony, in its action; from the when considered precluded the statute frauds favorably entirety, indulged in must be tenancy par agreement between the that the must plaintiff; and the court assume as writing; and that it was not in ties was jury may prop- those facts which the true making find In these indefinite duration. erly find under the evidence. upon general ings, circuit court our relied frauds of frauds5 and the statute of statute Syl. Raleigh-Wyoming pt. Nichols v. Coal concerning the of land.6 sale lease (1932). Co., 85, 163 See 112 W.Va. S.E. trial court stated on record: Legg, Syl. pt. Jividen v. 161W.Va. *5 real have statutes that deal with And we (1978). Furthermore, “[a] S.E.2d 835 agreement and if there is an oral property ap- evidentiary rulings, as well as its court’s writing, to if regarding not that’s reduced Evidence, plication of Rules of are sub- agreement year for a or that oral last ject of to review under abuse discretion writing[.] it ... has to be in more 4, Rodoussakis, Syl. pt. v. standard.” State W.Va. S.E.2d 469 (1998). [*] [*] [*] Secondly, Mr. standards, agreement that we turn to Within these allegedly had Mr. presented appeal. Stewart issues pur- nonagricultural, general in business or commercial of frauds W. statute is found (2000) provides including § poses, charge as fol- ac- Va.Code 55-1-1 and not or credit card credit, overdrafts, counts, personal or lows: lines of Provided, any consumer account: That other any brought in follow- No action shall be of the offer, apply any agree- shall not to subsection ing cases: assurance, ment, understanding, representation, (a) charge any person upon byor To reason of bank, savings or a concerning commitment contract with representation a character, conduct, credit, or assurance trade, ability, or union in which a and association credit or deal- loan another, by completed ings as purpose has been evidenced of to the intent or that transaction credit, thereby money, may or such other obtain a fund transfer. contract, offer, goods; agreement, promise, or Unless the (b) ratification, person upon assurance, charge any promise representation, To a or or made, thereof, age, pay writing full to contracted after debt in or note be some memorandum infancy; during upon after full by charged thereby or a ratification party signed to or be age, simple during promise of a or contract made agent. But be set his the consideration need not infancy; or writing; may expressed be in the and it forth or (c) charge personal representative upon a To (where necessary) by proved a consideration is any damages promise to debt or out of answer other evidence. estate; his own or (d) charge any person upon promise To writing requirement for the sale or lease 6. The debt, default, misdoings answer for the or § in 36-1-3 land (1997): contained W. Va.Code is another; or (e) any upon Upon agreement made consider- land, the lease No contract for sale or marriage; or ation of year, for one shall be en- thereof more than (f) any per- Upon agreement that is to be not or some note or forceable unless contract year; or formed within a writing signed be in offer, memorandum thereof any agreement, representation, (g) Upon thereby, by by charged party his assurance, commitment, be or understanding, or con- association, agent. bank, But need not be set savings the consideration tract of a and loan or may union, expressed writing, it be in the forth credit credit or to make a loan to extend dollars, primarily proved fifty other evidence. in for excess thousand (1997) working requires for him. was no 6-5 provide relative to There landlord notice specified for in time that and the law West equal tenancy.10 See period to a full Virginia, agreement personal if an for ser- Nefflen, Elkins Nat'l. Bank 118 W.Va. performed year vices cannot be within one (month-to-month (1936) tenancy 188 S.E. 750 writing.... it has to be reduced termination). requires one month notice of testimony any they that There was never Through testimony of the Stewarts and six months or intended to be there nine Mr. it was shown that the oral else, anything months or was an so it oral tenancy parties agreement between the agreement about a work situation that in indefinite duration. We held that have year would exceed one duration. length tenancy of a indefinite duration trial,7 upon developed Based the evidence may be determined the terms the rent hold, it was for the trial error as a Realty See Hans Watts payment. Co. v. law, matter of such evidence established Co., Huntington Nash Sales 107 W.Va. concerning a violation of the statute of frauds (1929) (“[W]e 147 S.E. are of the sale or lease of land.8 The evidence opinion periods the rental should be presented by clearly Stewarts established criterion, taken as the absence of other prima ease that a facie month-to-month intention, in evidence of a different determin tenancy parties. existed between the concerning tenancy year whether or not the is from statute frauds sale or lease land, however, month[.]”). require year does month The evi tenancy agreements month-to-month be re- presented by dence the Stewarts established writing.9 duced they paid a month for $350 rent, Where, performed by here, work as Stew exists a there tenancy, § month-to-month W. Va.Code 37- art It further Johnson.11 shown during premises, 7. The each their part testified case- leased thereof. When it they tenant, may in-chief and called Mr. upon anyone Johnson as wit- be served *6 ness. No other witness testified. premises who at in the time owns the whole or owner, part, agent in or the of such or accord- general applica- 8. The statute of frauds had no ing to the common law. shall This section not relationship tion to the landlord-tenant between where, by apply special agreement, some other parties. general extent To the that the stat- fixed, period of is or notice notice no is to be may applicable ute of case, have frauds been to this given; necessary notice be nor shall from or to employer- it would have concerned the a tenant term a certain whose is to end at time. ‘ employee any agreement aspect of between the Moreover, we have held that in lawful '[a] tenant However, parties. that matter not an is issue wrongfully possession premises, of who is evicted presented appeal. in this term, by expiration his landlord before the of his may resulting action maintain an for the dam- previously recognized 9. This Court has that a ages. wrongful is Where the eviction malicious person may employment have both an and a may punitive damages and wanton be recov- tenancy relationship Syl. pt. with another. See Silling, ered.” Cato v. 137 W.Va. 73 Co., Angel v. Black Band Consol. Coal 96 W.Va. (citations omitted). (1952) S.E.2d (1924) ("The 122 S.E. 274 miner an coal, employee mining respect in to his but a gave following testimony 11.Mrs. Stewart house; respects occupancy tenant as his of the regarding payment; the rent employer employee the two of relations necessarily my being Through landlord and tenant not mutual husband incon- some friends other."). sistent with each and I had met Mr. he needed Johnson and someone to do some work on some houses for him, requirements § 10. The notice of W. Va.Code 37- exchange place in for a to live he so had (1997) provide; work, 6-5 my you give told I’ll husband do the you you anything apartment, pay and I’ll tenancy year year may A from to be termi- $350.00 over a month. by party giving writing nated either notice in to testimony other, Mr. on issue of rent Stewart’s prior at least three months to the payment any year, indicated: end of of his intention to terminate periodic tenancy, [W]e Dennis Johnson some mu- the same. in met A which the having period year, may him be tual friends of ours. heard about is less than one terminated notice, by by property, period to like notice full lot of work done some of his for one home, stay, period. place before the of at the time we needed a end When such to tenant, may my arrange- upon notice is to the him, it be served me and wife. I made a verbal anyone upon holding him under ment that I was to work for him his mainte- Therefore, provide must reverse and not the Stew- matter. we Mr. Johnson did period equal proceedings.13 to a full of the notice remand the case further arts with month) (one evicting tenancy before them.12 presented the Stewarts To the extent Evidentiary Rulings B. showing ten that a month-to-month evidence challenge also several evi- The Stewarts with Mr. and that ancy existed dentiary rulings made trial court. providing no without evicted them First, they improperly contend the trial court tenancy, equal period to a full tice prior evictions excluded evidence other put on upon Mr. Johnson to incumbent Second, argue Mr. Johnson. the Stewarts the Stewarts’ contentions. to refute evidence in court error not the trial committed Supply in v. observed Co. We Bluefield permitting impeach to them Inc., Appliances, W.Va. Frankel’s response in with statements made written he (1965): 635, 142 898, S.E.2d magistrate to court and circuit court plaintiff by its in evidence When complaints. in prima facie ease has established chief its ... the burden of support of claim prior During evictions. Evidence evidence ... shift- going forward with the trial, open- during his Mr. Johnson stated The burden of to the defendant.... ed unlawfully that he had never statement plaintiff, to establish the claim the

proof anyone. sought evicted Stewarts however, going burden which unlike the present alleged prior evidence unlawful shift, does forward the evidence trial by Mr. Johnson but the court evictions upon plaintiff required who rested ruled that such evidence was character evi- preponderance by a its claim establish under dence and therefore inadmissible Rule all the evidence. 404(b) Rules of Evi- the West 404(b) ease, provides, the trial court dence. Rule relevant In the instant crimes, part, proceedings “[e]vidence at the close of the of other further halted prove This wrongs, ease-in-chief. was error. acts is not admissible Stewarts’ evidence, Only plaintiffs person consid to show that “[w]hen character of order him, fails light conformity favorable in the most he or therewith.” ered she acted right recovery, prima facie argue prior to establish that evidence of [grant judgment ... [should] was admissible for evictions in favor of a matter of the defen impeachment purposes. Additionally, law] as pt. rel. Syl. Roberts ex Roberts dant.” present Stewarts wanted evidence illus- *7 (1964). 166, Gale, 139 S.E.2d 272 149 W.Va. why they trate were afraid of Mr. Johnson legiti regard, “every reasonable and In this pattern and show a of unlawful eviction as arising from fairly testi mate inference the practice by Mr. normal business Johnson. entirety, in its must mony, when considered that the tri The record indicates favorably plaintiff; in and the indulged be perform balancing al court failed to the test those which must assume as true facts court 404(b) Sylla required In may properly find under for Rule evidence. jury the evi the McGinnis, 2, point Riffle, bus 2 of v. 193 Syl. pt. part, in Brannon v. State W.Va. dence.” (1996) (internal 147, 97, (1994), 516 addressed 475 97 455 S.E.2d we the 197 W.Va. S.E.2d omitted). assessing trial role of the trial court in Rule quotations and citations 404(b) in apply failed the above standards evidence: court work, No, Anything that A. ma’am. nance 350 a month. over hourly wage. anwas reversing remanding this We are and case notice, ques- 12. On the issue of grant- court error in because the trial committed as follows: tioned on the witness stand ing judgment law to Mr. as matter of Johnson. Now, you gave day Q. a 30 notice never them Nevertheless, remaining we must the address tenancy, you? the did to terminate may assignments error issues because those No, ma’am. A. again arise once on remand. you Q. evicted them the And never Court?

483 However, apartment. un- an evidence is made Stewarts’ in Where offer his an- 404(b) complaint, Virginia the Rules swer to the court Mr. John- der Rule of West Evidence, court, pursuant sending trial son admitted Porter the Lou the 104(a) Further, apartment. trial, during Virginia the Rule of the West Rules Evidence, Johnson testified that did not admissibility. he enter and is to determine its property evidence, apart- remove from Stewarts’ admitting the trial the Before the magistrate ment. In his answer to the court hearing should an in court conduct camera complaint, though, Mr. Dolin, 688, Johnson indicated he in v. as stated State 176 W.Va. (1986). apartment the prop- enter and removed hearing S.E.2d 208 After the 347 erty therefrom. The trial court counsel, excluded Mr. arguments and evidence Johnson’s circuit court answer on the by prepon- trial court must be satisfied grounds that was not answer verified. derance of the evidence that acts or Similarly, magistrate court answer was conduct occurred the defendant not admitted because Mr. asked If committed the acts. the trial court does only highlighted portion read preponderance not find of the evi- jury. answer to the dence the acts conduct was commit- actor, ted that the defendant was the The basis for the trial court’s the evidence should be under excluded ruling supported by on both not answers is 404(b). showing Rule If a sufficient has law. This that “[s]ince Court has held made, been trial court must then de- Procedure, adoption of the Civil Rules of relevancy of un- termine the the evidence requirement there is no ... answer Virginia 402 of der Rules 401 and the West 2, Syl. pt. part, be in verified.” M.W. Kel Rules of and conduct Evidence balanc- logg Corp., v.Co. Concrete Accessories 157 ing required Rule 403 of West under 763, (1974). W.Va. 204 S.E.2d 61 See W.Va. of Evidence. If Rules 11(a) (“Except spe- R.Civ.P. when otherwise 404(b) court is then satisfied that the Rule statute, cifically provided plead- rule admissible, it evidence is should instruct ings accompanied by be need verified or jury purpose on the limited for which affidavit.”). Moreover, spoke to “[w]e such has limit- evidence been admitted. A question of in pleadings in statements made ing given instruction should be at the time Atamaniuk, Lotz v. 172 W.Va. 304 offered, evidence is we recommend 20, (1983), terming 24 ‘judicial S.E.2d them repeated be the trial court’s admissions’, ‘[although they and said that general charge conclu- subsequent proceed- are not conclusive sion the evidence. they parties, between the same are ad- Syl. pt. v. See Tudor Area Charleston may given weight missible be whatever ” Ctr., Inc., Med. 203 W.Va. 506 S.E.2d of fact appropriate.’ the trier deems Moore (1997). Goode, W.Va. S.E.2d (1988). Therefore, in the instant ease appeal will We not determine by excluding the trial erred evidence of prior whether evidence of evictions the circuit court answer. However, should admitted. be *8 again attempt present should the Stewarts excluding As to of the issue evidence of other evictions Mr. magistrate court answer because the Stew- perform balancing court must it, only part sought arts introduce Rule 404(b) required mak- test for evidence when 106 Rules of of West Evidence admissibility its determination provides resolves issue. Rule 106 “when such evidence. writing part a or recorded statement Impeachment through party, answers. The thereof is introduced adverse sought impeach testimony by may require party introduction at that any part writing answers he filed time of other other magistrate ought court. both which in fair recorded statement trial, Specifically, during contemporaneously Mr. ness to be considered applicable Lou stated he not send Porter to the it.” Rule 106 is where a whatsoever, ment, steal and then pay no rent writing is “tantamount party’s utilization property without his con- pawn the landlord’s into [document] introduction to the sent, charge plead guilty a misdemeanor Corp., Rainey v. Beech evidence.” Aircraft Cir.1986). (11 involving property, and then sue the stolen 1523, n. 11 784 F.2d Tolstoy damages for and collect. landlord Therefore, reading record from into the is when he wrote “where there was correct introducing same as would be the document injustice.” law is there of Rule 106. purposes for that document instant one make Decisions like the reading court believe that the trial Should justice system by rewarding mockery of the be answer would somehow only part of the dishonesty and criminal misconduct remedy blatant is not to exclude misleading, then the (under punishing a reasonable these remedy into while is to admit such evidence. circumstances) harsh deviation from the part of the answer that any other evidence landlord and law. technicalities of tenant accurate statement provide a more would against is suit his landlord Rainey, Stewart’s Corp. v. Beech events. See Aircraft simply example flagrant abuse. another 109 S.Ct. 488 U.S. (1988) (“[W]hen people to lose confidence party Such abuses cause one L.Ed.2d document, dangerous thing in a system which is a portion of a of a made use has society. Unfortunately, ma-' can democratic misunderstanding or distortion such that jority abuse en- validates Stewart’s only through presentation of an- be averted go suring that his lawsuit can forward. required for com- portion, the material other ipso relevant and therefore pleteness is facto remand, Upon hope I that the landlord will (cita- and 402.” under Rule 401 admissible or, counterclaim for the tort conversion omitted)). for It was therefore error tions least, any damages for receive an offset from the to exclude evidence trial court awarded to the Stewarts. magistrate court answer. above, respectful- stated I For the reasons ly dissent.

IV. STARCHER, Justice, concurring. CONCLUSION 2001) (Filed July reasons, trial court’s foregoing For the as a of law to Mr. judgment matter award dissenting I forth differ with the view set reversed, and this is ease remanded Maynard’s separate opinion, which in Justice with this proceedings for consistent further proposition quotes Tolstoy Leo for the Count opinion. injustice.” is law there is “where there and Remanded.

Reversed suggest I as a the law been seen that, fortunate, use, if we can we are tool— MAYNARD, Justice, dissenting. justice.1 further the ends of (Filed 2001) July summary following from the record of itself, speaks the instant case and ex- majori- that the I dissent because believe plains why in the instant the Court’s decision gross injustice. ty opinion creates unquestionably step justice. toward case outset, majority, in I admit that At the our opinion, followed the strict confines of its I. But, ma- landlord and tenant law. while the Huntington, live in jority says that not condone Mr. Ron and Vera Stewart does Virginia, Ron does home im- thievery, precisely that is the re- West where Stewart’s *9 construction, general repair Virginia, provements, a and sult this decision. In West of Huntington apart- land- person now live in a landlord’s work. Dennis Johnson is can builder, my carpenter hammer Love between brothers and sis- and I love out 1. As an amateur course, Peter, Paul, Mary land.” Of like ters ... all over this tool, and tools. and understand morally sang: law can be used for different ... I'd hammer out "If I Had a Hammer purposes. ... I’d ... I’d hammer out Freedom Justice lord, Q. many you with three million dollars rental over How times did ask him? estate, many properties in a dis- real A. Three to five I per- times. called him tressed state. sonally at his home two three times. always He assured me that In he’d come October of landlord met bring and Stewarts, me check that he owed me for place who to live. needed up. over the rent. He They agreement: never showed following made the Q. By He never did? Ron Stewart: —well, off, A. first we met Dennis John- A. No ma’am. son some mutual friends of ours. atTr. 73. having I him property, heard about a lot of During 1998-1999, the winter months in needed a lot work done to some of his that, weeks, unpaid Stewart admitted property, and at need place the time we food, needing improperly he but temporarily stay, home, my me and wife. I made pawned two that using tools he was which arrangement a verbal that I was to work belonged to Johnson. One was retrieved and work, for him on his 350 a maintenance returned before Johnson ever knew had Anything hourly month. over was an gone. yet been did not Stewart have the wage. required for the second. $20.00 Tr. 69-70. at learned of the enraged. incident and was Asked to his describe hours and his work explained Stewart project that his last was for landlord replied: Ron Stewart residence, the work on Johnson’s own com- Anywhere day. A. from 7 to 12 hours a 3,1999. pleted February Q. many days you And how a week did Along A. ... I do some work? remodeling work to his own home. days A. Seven a week. Q. project you Is that the last were work-

Tr. at 70. ing on? Yeah, my very A. project. that was last work, IA. recite most but it’s Q. you And when did finish the work in everything, try. hard to remember so I’ll his own home? job first at The restoration was 519 front. done, remodeling It needed some work February A. day 3rd was the I finished was, carpet. needed new bathroom up his house. course, in- remodeled. New shower tub Q. just you And before were put I type, sert in. The old claw removed asked to leave? it, damaged busted it out. The floor was A. Yes ma’am. very replaced bad. I rest- floor February On evening ceiling, repainted, room. Sheetroeked the playing Stewarts returned home late from taped, just ceilings, textured the cards with friends. On door was the apartment. but the bathroom the whole note, following signed by Johnson: Tr. at Tex 4 1999 Feb transcript continues with pages three got your selling a warrant for arrest for & description projects Stewart com- my pawning my You tools. need vacate premises no later than tomorrow.

pleted for Johnson. Ron Stewart stated that paid kept infrequently, working he was but No warrant for Ron Stewart’s arrest existed because he continued to have the benefit time. The Stewarts found the door housing: open and the interior ransacked. Pawn tick- Q. you money? Did he owe more lay everywhere, missing, ets some were TV gone. Yes, ma’am, my A. over I’d worked rent. Porter, Early morning the next Lou John- Q. you pay you? Did ask him to associate, door, banged son’s on the told A. Yes gone by ma’am. them to move out and to be after- *10 February February 4 or Q. knew on You other had witnessed The Stewarts

noon. rent, working for evictions, Ron was still the 5 that and were fear- on-the-spot forcible apartment you? for on the was the rent of the other evictions Evidence ful. left The Stewarts trial. excluded I’m not sure of on A. Not those dates. they get a truck. When try apartment was as of that time he the exact date —but belongings, personal returned, of their all still— as furnishings, well as household and effects yes. A. that Before the mother kittens and newborn their two Q. was a tenant? —he cat, residence. from the been removed had A. Yes. as of at trial that Febru- admitted Johnson Q. a lawful tenant? He was in lawful were 4 and the Stewarts ary affirmative.) (Witness in the A. nodded also admit- unit. Johnson possession living still Q. you knew that he was Now 30-day no notice given he had Stewarts ted there? through vacate, them had not evicted A. Yes. they court, owed then claimed had not and rent:

A. A. the Court? Q. notice Q. Q. And No, Ma’am. Now, So No, ma’am. apartment on to terminate the they you you never were never evicted still February 4th gave in lawful tenancy, them them possession a and you? 5th? day A. Prior living there the whole had no that Q. ary, gone for a Q. Yea, All you weren’t he right. idea what —that would abandon the on long period of February February 4 So as looking for him and [*] of the 4th time? [*] yes. # he had he—would think time, apartment— not been he Febru- you 5th, yes, ma’am. February 4th and A. On right A. mean that date No ma’am. * * * that it’s on there I’m sure accurate there Now, any records or Q. you don’t have at 129-130. Tr. they you told them documentation you never sent money? Like you owed II. anything? them a bill itself, speaks for factual recital above No, A. ma’am. why plaintiffs instant explains at Tr. 124-125. case right to have their case have an absolute jury. its a decided on merits An- in his admitted handwritten Court, and in his Magistrate swer filed noteworthy because ease is instant Complaint in Amended to Plaintiffs’ Answer people who do pretty occasion when rare court, bagged Stew- he relatively high can take not have a income out unit. possessions, and cleaned arts’ and have simple grievance economic stating testimony, trial, changed the At he jury their claim.2 and evaluate decide belong- the Stewarts’ else removed someone rungs lower people are When case, re- ings. In when Stewarts they usually do have economic ladder truck, every- from the search turned time, legal money, energy to use the thing gone. simple but system as a tool—to seek the justice personal powerful economic admitted, equivo- also after some provide. not, cation, he had not, good see in the instant It is therefore abandoned knew the Stewarts had lawyer fought persis- Legal Aid case that apartment: claims, injury personal story; people with substantial injury a different cases are Personal regard the client’s income. represent without plenty lawyers will who there are *11 right tently for her have a clients’ justice

speak what is for issue of these

plaintiffs and this defendant. fully opinion. concur in the Court’s

549 S.E.2d 681 Yates,

Jonella R. YATES and Donald Husband, Below,

Her Plaintiffs

Appellants,

UNIVERSITY OF WEST VIRGINIA Statutory TRUSTEES,

BOARD OF A Below, Agency,

West Defendant

Appellee. 28241.

No.

Supreme of Appeals Court Virginia.

West

Submitted Jan. 2001. May

Decided 2001. Opinion

Concurring of Justice July

Starcher