Janura v. Janura, 20-0159
| Decision Date | 02 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-0159,20-0159 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Trina L. Janura, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. John J. Janura Jr., Plaintiff Below, Respondent |
Self-represented petitioner Trina L. Janura appeals two orders of the Circuit Court of Hancock County. In the first order, entered on September 6, 2018, the circuit court established the allotted acreage and boundary lines between a parcel of land belonging to petitioner and her sister, Patricia Janura-Jordan ("Patricia"), as co-tenants and a parcel of land belonging to their brother, Respondent John J. Janura Jr., after the court earlier granted respondent's petition to partition the eighty-five acres of land the siblings were given in their mother's will. In its second order, entered on January 30, 2020, the circuit court denied petitioner's motion to alter or amend the September 6, 2018, order. Respondent, by counsel Daniel L. McCune, filed a summary response.1 Petitioner filed a reply.
The Court has considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The parties and Patricia are the children of Kathryn Janura ("decedent") who died testate on July 3, 2008. The decedent's will was admitted to probate in Hancock County, West Virginia, where her estate remains open. Petitioner is the executrix of the estate. In the second paragraph of the will, the decedent gave her property, including real estate, to her three children "equally, shareand share alike, as per [the will's residuary clause]." The residuary clause contains the following language:
On December 11, 2012, respondent filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Hancock County to partition the approximately eighty-five acres of real estate devised by the decedent's will—including the land upon which the decedent's home was situated—among the siblings.2 Respondent alleged that the will's residuary clause did not create a trust to convert the decedent's residence into a group home or health-related facility and that, in any event, operation of such a home or facility on the decedent's property would be unreasonable and impractical. On January 14, 2013, petitioner filed an answer to the petition, asserting that the residuary clause created a trust and that, while a group home or health-related facility was not currently operating on the property, "[petitioner] has spent funds on research and other activities in furtherance of the development of [such a home or facility] as directed by the [w]ill." In an order entered on August 26, 2013, the circuit court found that, after a review of the residuary clause, (1) the siblings received the decedent's real estate in equal shares, each sibling having "an undivided one-third (?) interest in the property"; and (2) the residuary clause did not create a trust.
On March 17, 2014, petitioner filed a motion to compel the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration, relying on language in the residuary clause that provided "I want [petitioner] to have final say on any decisions or disputes." Respondent filed a response to the motion on March 27, 2014, asserting that the decedent's will contained no arbitration clause. By order entered on August 15, 2014, the circuit court denied the motion, finding that the residuary clause did not contain an arbitration clause.
In Janura v. Janura ("Janura I"), No. 14-0911, 2015 WL 3448181 (W. Va. May 29, 2015) (memorandum decision), petitioner appealed not only the August 15, 2014, order denying her motion to compel arbitration, but also the August 26, 2013, order finding that the residuary clause did not create a trust. In that case, we reviewed the circuit court's August 15, 2014, order under the collateral order doctrine and found that the circuit court properly denied petitioner's motion tocompel arbitration.3 We reasoned that, while the decedent wanted petitioner to be afforded substantial deference in how she interpreted the decedent's will, "the language on which petitioner relies evidences no intention by the decedent that disputes arising under the will be arbitrated." Id. at *3. We dismissed petitioner's appeal from the August 26, 2013, order, finding that it "did not constitute a final decision." Id. We noted that, as the circuit court retained plenary power to reconsider, alter, or amend non-final orders, petitioner was free to continue to argue that the residuary clause created a trust as long as her interpretation of the clause "is neither inconsistent with [its] language nor contrary to law." Id. at *4 n.4.
Before the circuit court, petitioner persisted in her argument that the residuary clause created a trust; however, she failed to convince the court to reconsider its previous ruling. By order entered on July 21, 2017, the circuit court appointed three special commissioners to evaluate whether the eighty-five acres could be partitioned in kind. On November 15, 2017, the commissioners reported that a partition in kind was possible where respondent could be given "a share of the subject property . . . [that] would not injure the ownership interests of [petitioner and Patricia] nor prohibit development of their parcel(s) as they desire." The commissioners noted that, pursuant to the residuary clause, the decedent wanted at least part of the real estate, "the orchard," to be "divided into three plots . . . for each sibling[.]"
After taking additional evidence at a March 9, 2018, hearing, the circuit court entered an order adopting the commissioners' report on April 17, 2018. Based on the commissioners' report, the circuit court found that the eighty-five acre tract the siblings received from the decedent "could be equitabl[y] partitioned while still providing enough land and the large house sufficient to permit [petitioner] to develop a group home or a health-related facility." The circuit court further found that Patricia was "always . . . in agreement with [petitioner's] requests" and that, after respondent is allocated his one-third share, "[n]o attempt will be made to allot the remaining two thirds between the sisters because they do not want any allotment." The circuit court stated that it was not prepared to make the actual division between the parcel of land belonging to petitioner and Patricia as co-tenants ("the residue parcel") and the parcel belonging to respondent ("respondent's parcel"), but that "the specific property lines of the court[-]ordered partition will be set forth in a further order of the court."
On May 30, 2018, petitioner filed an appeal from the circuit court's April 17, 2018, order. During the pendency of that appeal, the circuit court entered its September 6, 2018, order establishing the allotted acreage and boundary lines between the residue parcel and respondent's parcel. The circuit court found that, after partition, the residue parcel had 31.33 acres and respondent's parcel had 53.67 acres. The circuit court further found that "[t]he difference in acreage among the siblings in the court's allotment is based on the total value of the acreage to be received by each sibling and takes into account that all the buildings are located on the acreage allotted to [the residue parcel]." The circuit court attached an exhibit, prepared by a licensedsurveyor retained by respondent, ruling that "[t]he borderline establishing the border between the two parcels of real estate allocated to the parties depicted in exhibit 'A' is accepted by the court" and that "the borderline, as marked in exhibit 'A,' is hereby ORDERED to be the dividing line between the two parcels."4 The circuit court stayed its September 6, 2018, order "until the [West Virginia] Supreme Court of Appeals rules on [petitioner's appeal from the April 17, 2018, order.]" On September 17, 2018, petitioner filed a motion to alter or amend the September 6, 2018, order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.
In Janura v. Janura ("Janura II"), No. 18-0495, 2019 WL 4165288 (W. Va. September 3, 2019) (memorandum decision), we dismissed petitioner's appeal from the circuit court's April 17, 2018, order, finding that it was not a final order, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id. at *3-4. Following remand, by order entered on January 30, 2020, the circuit court denied petitioner's motion to alter or amend its September 6, 2018, order establishing the allotted acreage and boundary lines between the residue parcel and respondent's parcel.
Petitioner now appeals the circuit court's September 6, 2018, order and its January 30, 2020, order denying her motion to alter or amend the September 6, 2018, order. We have held that the standard of review for the denial of a motion filed under Rule 59(e) "is the same standard that would apply to the underlying judgment upon which the motion is based and from which the appeal to this Court is filed." Syl....
To continue reading
Request your trial