Fredeking v. Tyler

• Citation: 680 S.E.2d 16
• Decision Date: 26 February 2009
• Docket Number: No. 34150.,34150.
• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia
• Parties: Arden E. FREDEKING, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Marlise TYLER and Bradford Tyler as parents and next friends of Arianna Tyler, an infant under the age of eighteen and Marlise Tyler and Bradford Tyler, individually, Defendants Below, Appellants, and GEICO Indemnity Company, Defendant Below, Appellee.

680 S.E.2d 16

Arden E. FREDEKING, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, v. Marlise TYLER and Bradford Tyler as parents and next friends of Arianna Tyler, an infant under the age of eighteen and Marlise Tyler and Bradford Tyler, individually, Defendants Below, Appellants, and GEICO Indemnity Company, Defendant Below, Appellee.

No. 34150.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 28, 2009.

Decided February 26, 2009.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The appellate standard of review for an order granting or denying a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law after trial pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998] is de novo.

2. When this Court reviews a trial court's order granting or denying a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial under Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998], it is not the task of this Court to review the facts to determine how it would have ruled on the evidence presented. Instead, its task is to determine whether the evidence was such that a reasonable trier of fact might have reached the decision below. Thus, when considering a ruling on a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

3. "In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict the court should: (1) consider the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party; (2) assume that all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in favor of the prevailing party; (3) assume as proved all facts which the prevailing party's evidence tends to prove; and (4) give to the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably may be drawn from the facts proved." Syllabus Point 5, Orr v. Crowder, 173 W.Va. 335, 315 S.E.2d 593 (1983).

William L. Mundy, Esq., James A. Spenia, Esq., Mundy & Nelson, Huntington, WV, for Appellee Arden Fredeking.

Brian D. Morrison, Esq., Bailey & Wyant, P.L.L.C., Charleston, WV, for the Appellants.

KETCHUM, Justice:¹

In this appeal from the Circuit Court of Cabell County, we are asked to review a circuit court order setting aside a jury's verdict, entering judgment as a matter of law, and granting a new trial on damages to determine the value of a vehicle totaled in a collision.

After careful consideration of the trial transcript and evidence, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and all other matters of record, we reverse the circuit court's order and reinstate the jury's verdict holding that the plaintiff below did not establish that she owned the vehicle totaled in the collision.

I. Facts and Background

On July 22, 2003, a vehicle collision occurred at an intersection in Huntington, West Virginia. The appellant and defendant below, Arianna Tyler, was driving a car owned by her parents² when she drove into an intersection and collided with a vehicle being driven by the appellee and plaintiff below, Arden E. Fredeking. The vehicle being driven by Ms. Fredeking—a 1985 BMW 535i—was totaled in the collision.

In the original complaint filed on September 12, 2003, Ms. Fredeking and the "Fredeking & Fredeking Law Offices, L.C."— both represented by an attorney employed by the Fredeking & Fredeking law firm— sued for Ms. Fredeking's personal injuries³ and for the damages to the 1985 BMW 535i, which the complaint stated was owned by the Fredeking & Fredeking law firm.⁴ The defendants filed an answer to the complaint that asserted a counterclaim against Ms. Fredeking seeking contribution for any negligence on her part that contributed to any damage to the BMW 535i owned by the Fredeking & Fredeking law firm. On November 5, 2003, the law firm voluntarily dismissed its claims, and Ms. Fredeking sought to amend her complaint to assert that she was the "proper owner" of the vehicle.⁵ By order dated December 11, 2003, the circuit court granted Ms. Fredeking's motion to amend her complaint.⁶

The issue presented to the jury was whether the plaintiff, Ms. Fredeking, was the owner of the 1985 BMW 535i, and therefore entitled to damages for the value of the totaled vehicle. The defendants contended at trial that Ms. Fredeking was not the owner of the BMW 535i.

At trial, only the plaintiff, Ms. Fredeking, presented witness testimony to the jury. The defendants submitted no witnesses, and relied upon evidence solicited during cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.

The facts adduced at trial are these: in 1985, a business owned by Ms. Fredeking's father, "Fredeking & Fredeking, Legal Corp.," purchased the BMW 535i. The vehicle's title was issued in Florida, and the vehicle was registered and licensed in Florida.

Ms. Fredeking contends that, thirteen years later, in 1998, her father "gave" the vehicle to Ms. Fredeking for her 16th birthday. From 1998 until the time of the collision in 2003, Ms. Fredeking testified that she resided in Huntington, West Virginia where she garaged, drove and serviced the vehicle. At trial, both Ms. Fredeking and her father, R.R. Fredeking, II., testified that Ms. Fredeking was the owner of the vehicle.

However, during that time period the vehicle continued to be registered and licensed in Florida in the name of "Fredeking & Fredeking, Legal Corp." The vehicle's registration was never renewed in Ms. Fredeking's name; instead, each year, the law firm paid for and renewed the registration in its name in the State of Florida.

The vehicle also continued to be titled in the law firm's name in Florida. At trial, Ms. Fredeking's father testified that he—as owner of the law firm⁷—signed the back of the vehicle's Florida title in 1998 to signify he transferred the vehicle to Ms. Fredeking. However, the title to the vehicle was never transferred from the law firm's name into Ms. Fredeking's name prior to the accident.

Copies of the police accident report and the post-accident vehicle storage bills were introduced into evidence without objection. Each of these documents stated that the vehicle was owned by the law firm, not by Ms. Fredeking.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. Specifically, the jury found that the 1985 BMW 535i was not owned by the plaintiff, Ms. Fredeking.⁸

Ms. Fredeking subsequently filed a renewed motion for a judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998]. In an order dated November 1, 2007, the circuit court granted Ms. Fredeking's motion, concluding that

[A]ll the testimony at trial showed that the vehicle was properly signed over to and owned by Arden Fredeking. The only evidence at trial concerning ownership of the vehicle was that the plaintiff's father signed the title over to the [plaintiff], gave her possession of the title, and gave her possession of the vehicle prior to the motor vehicle accident in question.

The circuit court went on to find that

The only evidence presented at trial indicated that the plaintiff intended the vehicle to be her own and used it as such from the time of the transfer of ownership until the time of the motor vehicle accident.

The circuit court therefore granted Ms. Fredeking's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law after trial and held that she was the owner of the BMW 535i, stating that "all of the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Arden Fredeking was the rightful owner of the motor vehicle." Based on this ruling, the circuit court awarded the plaintiff a new trial "on damages only" to determine the value of the vehicle totaled in the collision.

The defendants now appeal the circuit court's November 1, 2007 order granting the plaintiff judgment as a matter of law on the issue of ownership of the 1985 BMW 535i and a new trial on the single issue of damages.

II. Standard of Review

The circuit court granted the plaintiff judgment as a matter of law after trial pursuant to Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure [1998]. Prior to the amendment of Rule 50 in April 1998, a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law was called a "motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict" or "motion for judgment non obstante veredicto,"⁹ and we note that these vestigial terms continue to occasionally litter both this Court's opinions and the arguments of attorneys. See, e.g., Syllabus Point 2, Pipemasters, Inc. v. Putnam County Com'n, 218 W.Va. 512, 625 S.E.2d 274 (2005); Syllabus Point 1, Bowyer v. Hi-Lad, Inc., 216 W.Va. 634, 609 S.E.2d 895 (2004); Syllabus Point 2, Kizer v. Harper, 211 W.Va. 47, 561 S.E.2d 368 (2001).

Our standard of review of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was de novo. In Syllabus Point 3 of Alkire v. First Nat. Bank of Parsons, 197 W.Va. 122, 475 S.E.2d 122 (1996), we said:

The granting of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reviewed de novo, which triggers the same stringent decisional standards that are used by the circuit courts. While a review of this motion is plenary, it is also circumscribed because we must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

While the terminology changed when Rule 50 was amended in 1998, it is clear that the standards of review for rulings regarding motions made under the rule were unaffected. Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home, 193 W.Va. 475, 482 n. 7, 457 S.E.2d 152, 159 n. 7 (1995). See, e.g., Gillingham v. Stephenson, 209 W.Va. 741, 745, 551 S.E.2d 663, 667 (2001) (This Court applies "a de novo standard of review to the grant or denial of a pre-verdict or post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law."); Syllabus Point 5, Smith v. First Community Bancshares, Inc., 212 W.Va. 809, 575 S.E.2d 419 (2002) ("The appellate standard of review for the granting of a motion for a [judgment as a matter of law] pursuant to Rule 50 of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo.")

Still, to clarify our law...