Lloyd's Inc v. Lloyd, 34866.
Decision Date | 04 March 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 34866.,34866. |
Citation | 693 S.E.2d 451,225 W.Va. 377 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | LLOYD'S, INC., a West Virginia Business Corporation, Plaintiff Below, Appellant,v.Charles R. LLOYD, Defendant Below, Appellee. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. “Appellate review of a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo.” Syllabus point 2 State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995).
2. Syllabus point 6 Perdue v. S.J. Groves & Sons Co., 152 W.Va. 222, 161 S.E.2d 250 (1968).
3. Syllabus point 4 Blake v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., 201 W.Va. 469, 498 S.E.2d 41 (1997).
4. “ ‘ Syllabus point 1, Conley v. Spillers, 171 W.Va. 584, 301 S.E.2d 216 (1983).
5. Syllabus point 2, State ex rel. Vedder v. Zakaib, 217 W.Va. 528, 618 S.E.2d 537 (2005).
6. Syllabus point 3, State ex rel. Vedder v. Zakaib, 217 W.Va. 528, 618 S.E.2d 537 (2005).
Kenneth E. Webb, Jr., J. Mark Adkins, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love LLP, Charleston, WV, for Appellant.
Stephen B. Farmer, Erin K. King, Farmer, Cline & Campbell, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Appellee.
The appellant herein and plaintiff below, Lloyd's, Inc. (hereinafter “Lloyd's”), appeals from an order entered February 11, 2009, by the Circuit Court of Braxton County. By that order, the circuit court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the appellee herein and defendant below, Charles R. Lloyd (hereinafter “Charles Lloyd”), and dismissed Lloyd's complaint finding that the claims asserted therein were barred by res judicata. The circuit court additionally denied Lloyd's motion to amend its complaint to add an additional party defendant concluding that, even if leave were granted to add this party, the claims asserted were the same as those in Lloyd's original complaint and, thus, would be precluded by res judicata. On appeal to this Court, Lloyd's assigns error to the circuit court's rulings dismissing its complaint and denying its motion to amend its complaint. Upon a review of the parties' arguments, the record presented for appellate consideration, and the pertinent authorities, we affirm the decision of the Braxton County Circuit Court.
To understand the instant controversy, it is necessary to briefly revisit the relationships among and the litigation history between the parties. Charles Lloyd is the father of William Greg Lloyd (hereinafter “Greg Lloyd”) and Charles R. Lloyd, II (hereinafter “Chuck Lloyd”). Charles Lloyd, the appellee herein, owns several business interests and property holdings in Braxton County, West Virginia; he also is the owner of Lloyd Stave Company, Inc. (hereinafter “Lloyd Stave”), through which he operates a motel and a convenience store. Charles's son, Greg Lloyd, owns the appellant herein, Lloyd's, Inc., and, through this corporation, Greg Lloyd operates a hardware store. For several years, Charles Lloyd served as the bookkeeper for Lloyd's. Additionally, Greg Lloyd and his brother, Chuck Lloyd, jointly own Braxton Lumber Company (hereinafter “Braxton Lumber”).
On April 20, 2004, Greg Lloyd filed a civil action (hereinafter “Case Number 04-C-39”) in the Circuit Court of Braxton County against his father, Charles Lloyd; his brother, Chuck Lloyd; and Braxton Lumber Company. The essence of this lawsuit alleged that Charles Lloyd and Chuck Lloyd were conspiring to keep Greg Lloyd from participating in the business decisions of Braxton Lumber and that, in furtherance of this scheme, Charles Lloyd had forged minutes of a Braxton Lumber board meeting. This lawsuit also sought judicial dissolution of Braxton Lumber Company and partition of real estate. In response to this complaint, Charles Lloyd filed a counterclaim against Greg Lloyd and a third-party complaint against Lloyd's through which he sought repayment of a $132,000.00 note that had secured loans he had made to Lloyd's, and which had been guaranteed by Greg Lloyd, in 1996 and 1997 for the hardware store's startup expenses. Charles Lloyd additionally sought repayment from Greg Lloyd and Lloyd's of unpaid rent for the parcel of property upon which the hardware store is located.1
Thereafter, Charles Lloyd filed a motion for summary judgment as to his counterclaims and third-party complaint. In response to this motion, Greg Lloyd and Lloyd's averred that Charles Lloyd, while keeping Lloyd's books, had misapplied payments they had made to Charles Lloyd in partial satisfaction of the $132,000.00 note. However, Greg Lloyd did not move to amend his complaint to add a cause of action against Charles Lloyd for misappropriation or conversion of these monies. Nor did Greg Lloyd or Lloyd's file a separate lawsuit during the pendency of Case Number 04-C-39 asserting such claims against Charles Lloyd.
During the ensuing trial of this matter in March and April 2007, Greg Lloyd and Lloyd's again attempted to defend themselves against Charles Lloyd's counterclaims and third-party complaint by claiming that he had misapplied payments they had made on the note. The trial court, however, refused to permit the late assertion of this defense ruling that such “issues ... unfortunately ... aren't in this lawsuit.” In response to additional arguments made by Greg Lloyd and Lloyd's that the misapplied monies had been received either by Charles Lloyd or by Lloyd Stave Company, the trial court ruled that By order entered March 5, 2008,2 the trial court granted “Charles R. Lloyd's motion for judgment as a matter of law in favor of his third-party claim for payment of a $132,000.00 Note against Lloyd's, Inc.” Greg Lloyd and Chuck Lloyd both appealed from the circuit court's rulings to this Court,3 and this Court refused both of their petitions for appeal by orders entered December 9, 2008.4
On August 17, 2007, following the rendering of judgment in Case Number 04-C-39, Lloyd's filed a separate lawsuit (hereinafter “Case Number 07-C-76”) against Charles Lloyd in the Circuit Court of Braxton County. This second litigation forms the basis of the case sub judice. In this proceeding, Lloyd's alleged that, while serving as its bookkeeper, Charles Lloyd had misappropriated, misapplied, and/or converted payments it had made in satisfaction of its debts; among the causes of action asserted against Charles Lloyd are claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. Through this action, Lloyd's attempts to show that it should not be required to pay the full amount of the $132,000.00 note, the repayment of which Charles Lloyd sought through his counterclaims and third-party complaint in Case Number 04-C-39, because Charles Lloyd wrongfully applied payments Lloyd's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baker v. Chemours Co. FC
...or an abuse of discretion will never be known, since the petitioner did not appeal from the final judgment. In this regard, we conclude that Lloyd's is dispositive of the petitioner's case.In Lloyd's , the plaintiff, Greg Lloyd ("Greg") brought suit against his father, Charles Lloyd ("Mr. L......
-
Cal. State Teachers' Ret. Sys. v. Blankenship
...we have reached similar conclusions regarding the futility of amending a complaint. See, e.g., Lloyd ’s, Inc. v. Lloyd , 225 W.Va. 377, 386-87, 693 S.E.2d 451, 460-61 (2010) (finding circuit court did not abuse discretion when denying motion to amend complaint because claims sought to be as......
-
Donahue v. Mammoth Restoration & Cleaning
...liability under either West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act or public duty doctrine); Lloyd's, Inc. v. Lloyd, 225 W.Va. 377, 386-87, 693 S.E.2d 451, 460-61 (2010) (concluding that motion to amend complaint was correctly denied "because the claims sought to be asse......
-
Chalifoux v. W.Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res.
...... so long as the claim could have been raised and. determined."); Lloyd's, Inc. v. Lloyd , 225. W.Va. 377, 383, 693 S.E.2d 451, 457 (2010) (finding res. ......