Johnson v. Nedeff
Decision Date | 18 November 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 22236,22236 |
Citation | 452 S.E.2d 63,192 W.Va. 260 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Theresa L. JOHNSON, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Vincent M. NEDEFF and Ferris Nedeff, Defendants Below, Appellees. |
Syllabus by the Court
1.Syl.Pt. 1, Winston v. Wood, 190 W.Va. 194, 437 S.E.2d 767(1993).
2.A complaint filed in a civil action must be timely received by the proper custodian before that action is deemed filed.
3.Rule 60(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure applies to clerical errors made through oversight or omission which are part of the record and is not intended to adversely affect the rights of the parties or alter the substance of the order, judgment or record beyond what was intended.
4.Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure does not afford relief from a final judgment of the circuit court dismissing a personal injury action with prejudice for failure to comply with the statutory limitations for instituting suit.
Michael J. Farrell, Jenkins, Fenstermaker, Krieger, Kayes & Farrell, Huntington, for appellant.
L. David Duffield, Offutt, Eifert, Fisher & Duffield, Huntington, for appellant.
F. Richard Hall, Dean A. Furner, Spilman, Thomas & Battle, Parkersburg, for appellees.
This case is before the Court upon the appeal of Theresa L. Johnson from the October 15, 1993, final order of the Circuit Court of Wood County granting the Appellees' motion to dismiss and holding that the statute of limitations governing the case had expired prior to the filing of the Appellant's complaint.We affirm the decision of the trial court in dismissing the action with prejudice.
The Appellant and Appellees were involved in a multi-vehicle automobile accident on July 20, 1991.As a result of injuries sustained in the accident, Appellant instituted a suit predicated on negligence against the Appellees.
On February 9, 1993, Appellant's counsel contacted the Wood County Circuit Clerk's Office("clerk's office") to obtain the proper mailing address for the circuit court and the clerk's office in connection with the filing of a complaint in an unrelated civil action.The clerk's office provided Appellant's counsel with a post office box address which was incorrect.1Appellant's counsel mailed the unrelated civil action to the incorrect address eleven days prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.Even though the complaint was mailed to the wrong address, it was timely received and filed by the clerk's office.Appellant's counsel was never informed by the clerk's office that the complaint in the unrelated action had been mailed to the incorrect address.
Five months later, on July 13, 1993, Appellant's counsel mailed the complaint in the present case to the incorrect address for the clerk's office previously supplied by that office in February.The complaint was mailed eight days prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.2
On July 20, 1993, while on vacation, Appellant's counsel telephoned his legal assistant to ensure the complaint had been timely filed.The legal assistant advised counsel that the complaint had been mailed on July 13, 1993.Appellant's counsel directed the legal assistant to telephone the clerk's office to verify that the complaint had been received.The legal assistant telephoned the clerk's office on that same day, but was unable to verify filing because the clerk's telephone lines were busy.
On July 22, 1993, after the two-year statute of limitations had expired, Appellant's counsel's legal assistant contacted the clerk's office and discovered that the clerk's office had not received the complaint.A second complaint was prepared and Federal Expressed to the clerk's office on that day.The second complaint was received and filed by the clerk's office on July 23, 1993, two days after the statute of limitations had expired.The original complaint, with a July 13, 1993, postmark, was received and filed by the clerk's office on July 26, 1993.
On August 2, 1993, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice on the grounds that the action was barred by the statute of limitations.The circuit court granted this motion over Appellant's objection and entered an order on September 2, 1993, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.It is from this order that Appellant now seeks relief from this Court.
Appellant contends the circuit court erred: (1) by choosing form over substance and dismissing the complaint as violative of the statute of limitations; (2) by failing to grant relief to Appellant under Rule 60(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure;(3) by failing to grant relief to Appellant pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure;(4) by failing to grant Appellant relief under the provisions of West Virginia Code § 39-3-5(1982); and (5) by failing to grant relief to Appellant under the provisions of West Virginia Code § 55-2-18(1994).
Appellant contends the trial court erred in choosing "form and technicalities over equity and justice" in dismissing the complaint.In essence, she seeks to carve out some equitable exception based on the facts of this case, to the rules providing for commencement of an action.3
West Virginia Code § 55-2-12(1994) requires that a cause of action for personal injury must be brought within two years after the right to bring the action has accrued.4Neither of the two complaints filed by the Appellant in this case was received by the clerk's office until after the two-year period for instituting a personal injury action had expired.
Syl.Pt. 1, Winston v. Wood, 190 W.Va. 194, 437 S.E.2d 767(1993).
Rule 5(e) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure defines "(f)iling with the court" as follows:
The filing of pleadings and other papers with the court as required by these rules shall by made by filing them with the clerk of the court, who shall note thereon the filing date, except that the judge may permit the papers to be filed with him, in which event he shall note thereon the filing date and forthwith transmit them to the office of the clerk; the notation by the clerk or the judge of the filing date on any such paper constitutes the filing of such paper, and such paper then becomes a part of the record in the action without any order of the court.
In Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Lane, 152 W.Va. 578, 165 S.E.2d 379(1969), 5this Court stated:
Statutes of limitations are statutes of repose.Their object is to compel the exercise of a right of action within a reasonable time.(Street v. Consumers Mining Corporation, 185 Va. 561, 39 S.E.2d 271, 167 A.L.R. 886;Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 85 S.Ct. 1050, 13 L.Ed.2d 941;Walter v. August, 186 Cal.App.2d 395, 8 Cal.Rptr. 778, 83 A.L.R.2d 941;Burns v. Burns, 233 Iowa 1092, 11 N.W.2d 461, 150 A.L.R. 306;Summers v. Connolly, 159 Ohio St. 396, 112 N.E.2d 391, 39 A.L.R.2d 661.)...
At one time the attitude of courts was hostile toward the enforcement of statutes of limitations.However, legislative policy in enacting such statutes is now recognized as controlling and courts, fully acknowledging their effect, look with favor upon such statutes as a defense.This is well stated in 34 Am.Jur., Limitation of Actions, Section 14, as follows: (SeeSchulte v. Westborough, Inc., 163 Kan. 111, 180 P.2d 278, 172 A.L.R. 259;Hunter v. Hunter, 361 Mo. 799, 237 S.W.2d 100, 24 A.L.R.2d 611, and, Woodruff v. Shores, 354 Mo. 742, 190 S.W.2d 994, 166 A.L.R. 957.)...
It is evident from the foregoing authorities that statutes of limitations are favored in the law and cannot be avoided unless the party seeking to do so brings himself strictly within some exception.It has been widely held that such exceptions 'are strictly construed and are not enlarged by the courts upon considerations of apparent hardship.'(Woodruff v. Shores, 354 Mo. 742, 190 S.W.2d 994, 166 A.L.R. 957.)
152 W.Va. at 582, 165 S.E.2d at 383.
In making the "form over substance" argument, Appellant relies heavily on this Court's decision in Winston, contending that procedural technicalities should not be used to penalize a litigant because of an error by a public officer or other entity beyond the control of that litigant.Appellant argues that under the facts of this case, her personal injury claim should not be time barred because of the error of the clerk's office in providing her counsel with the wrong mailing address five months earlier and...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Savage v. Booth
...errors arising from oversight or omission." 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2854 at 239 (1995). 6 We recently discussed the requirements of Rule 60(a) in
Johnson v. Nedeff, 192 W.Va. 260, 452 S.E.2d 63 (1994), where we stated in Syllabus Point "Rule 60(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure applies to clerical errors made through oversight or omission which are part of the record and is not intended to adversely affectW.Va. at 265, 452 S.E.2d at 68, quoting Woods v. Guerra, 187 W.Va. 487, 489, 419 S.E.2d 900, 902 (1992), quoting Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2854 at 149 (1973). In Johnson, 192 W.Va. at 265, 452 S.E.2d at 68, we also quoted Stephenson v. Ashburn, 137 W.Va. 141, 146, 70 S.E.2d 585, 588 (1952), which defined a clerical error under W.Va.Code, 58-2-5 (1923), 7 the predecessor to Rule 60(a), " 'An error committed inor record speak the truth and cannot be used to make it say something other than what originally was pronounced" ' " while more substantial errors " ' "are to be corrected by a motion under Rules 59(e) or 60(b)." ' " 192 W.Va. at 265, 452 S.E.2d at 68, quoting Woods v. Guerra, 187 W.Va. 487, 489, 419 S.E.2d 900, 902 (1992), quoting Charles A. Wright and Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2854 at 149 (1973). In Johnson, 192 W.Va. at 265, 452 S.E.2d at... -
Metz v. E. Associated Coal, LLC
...bias." Concerns rooted in policy actually tilt in favor of disallowing the discovery rule to further the objective of statutes of limitation: "to compel the bringing of an action within a reasonable time."
Johnson v. Nedeff , 192 W.Va. 260, 266, 452 S.E.2d 63, 69 (1994); see also Morgan v. Grace Hosp., Inc. , 149 W.Va. 783, 791, 144 S.E.2d 156, 161 (1965) ("The basic purpose of statutes of limitations is to encourage promptness in instituting actions; to suppress stale demands... -
Wright v. Myers
...omission which are part of the record and is not intended to adversely affect the rights of the parties or alter the substance of the order, judgment or record beyond what was intended. Syl. pt. 3,
Johnson v. Nedeff, 192 W.Va. 260, 452 S.E.2d 63 (1994). Accord Syl. pt. 4, Barber v. Barber, 195 W.Va. 38, 464 S.E.2d 358 (1995). This authority to correct clerical errors is also an inherent part of the judicial power accorded to circuit courts. See, e.g., Syl. pt. 1, in part,requirements for filing causes of action in the courts of this State. "By strictly enforcing statutes of limitations, we are both recognizing and adhering to the legislative intent underlying such provisions." Johnson v. Nedeff, 192 W.Va. 260, 265, 452 S.E.2d 63, 68 (1994). Nevertheless, there is an exception to every rule, and statutes of limitations are no different in this regard except for the fact that their exceptions, which are few, are very limited both in their nature and instatutes of limitation are strictly construed and the enumeration by the Legislature of specific exceptions by implication excludes all others." Syl. pt. 3, Hoge v. Blair, 105 W.Va. 29, 141 S.E. 444 (1928). Accord Johnson v. Nedeff, 192 W.Va. at 263, 452 S.E.2d at 66("[S]tatutes of limitations are favored in the law and cannot be avoided unless the party seeking to do so brings himself strictly within some exception. It has been widely held that such exceptions are strictly construed... -
Lydick v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co.
...time-barred. Goodman v. Praxair, Inc. , 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir. 2007) ; Dean v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. , 395 F.3d 471, 474 (4th Cir. 2005). The law favors statutes of limitation and construes them liberally. See
Johnson v. Nedeff , 192 W.Va. 260, 452 S.E.2d 63, 66 (1994)(quotations omitted). Courts analyzing a West Virginia statute of limitations should conduct a five-step analysis in determining whether a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. See Robinson...