State ex rel. Evans v. Robinson

• Citation: 197 W.Va. 482,475 S.E.2d 858
• Decision Date: 08 July 1996
• Docket Number: Nos. 23182,23195,s. 23182
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Richard EVANS, Petitioner, v. Honorable Dan C. ROBINSON, Special Judge of the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Earl C. Bevins and Delphine Bevins, Respondents, and STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Frank M. PECK, Jr., Petitioner, v. Honorable Robert G. CHAFIN, Judge of the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Earl C. Bevins and Delphine Bevins, Respondents.

Page 858

475 S.E.2d 858

197 W.Va. 482

STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Richard EVANS, Petitioner, v. Honorable Dan C. ROBINSON, Special Judge of the Circuit

Court of Wayne County, Earl C. Bevins and Delphine

Bevins, Respondents, and STATE of West Virginia ex rel. Frank M. PECK, Jr., Petitioner, v. Honorable Robert G. CHAFIN, Judge of the Circuit Court of

Wayne County, Earl C. Bevins and Delphine Bevins,

Respondents.

Nos. 23182, 23195.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Feb. 6, 1996.

Decided July 8, 1996.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "The general rule is that there is a presumption of regularity of court proceedings; it remains until the contrary appears and the burden is on the person who alleges such irregularity to affirmatively show it." Syl. pt. 1, State ex rel. Massey v. Boles, 149 W.Va. 292, 140 S.E.2d 608 (1965).

2. " 'Prohibition lies only to restrain inferior courts from proceeding in causes over which they have no jurisdiction, or, in which, having jurisdiction, they are exceeding their legitimate powers and may not be used as a substitute for writ of error, appeal or certiorari.' Syl. pt. 1, Crawford v. Taylor, 138 W.Va. 207, 75 S.E.2d 370 (1953)." Syl. pt. 2, Cowie v. Roberts, 173 W.Va. 64, 312 S.E.2d 35 (1984).

James Allan Colburn, Baer, Colburn & Morris, L.C., Huntington, James M. Sprouse, Sprouse, Pritt & Mohler, Union, for Petitioner Richard Evans.

Frank M. Peck, Jr., Huntington, pro se.

P. Nathan Bowles, Jr., Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, Charleston, for Respondents Earl C. Bevins and Delphine Bevins.

PER CURIAM:

This opinion involves two petitions for writs of prohibition which have been consolidated before this Court because both concern the validity of a May 19, 1993 order of the Circuit Court of Wayne County which enforced a settlement agreement involving an oil and gas lease. ¹ The first petition was brought by Richard Evans and seeks to prohibit the Circuit Court of Wayne County from proceeding with a trial which was set for September 18, 1995, in a civil action entitled Earl C. Bevins and Delphine Bevins v. Richard Evans and Frank Peck. The respondents in this action are Earl and Delphine Bevins, and the Honorable Dan C. Robinson. The second petition was filed by Frank M. Peck, Jr., pro se and likewise seeks to prohibit the circuit court from proceeding with a trial in the above civil action. The respondents in this action are Earl and Delphine Bevins and the Honorable Robert G. Chafin. ² For reasons set forth below, we decline to issue the writs of prohibition.

I

The facts leading up to the petitions now before us are very convoluted. As noted above, at issue is the validity of the order dated May 19, 1993 which enforced a settlement agreement involving an oil and gas lease. Therefore, to better understand how these two petitions for writs of prohibition arose, we must explicitly set forth the facts leading up to the May 19, 1993 order.

The petitioner, Richard Evans (hereinafter "Evans"), has been the fee owner of certain real estate in Wayne County since 1972. Evans also owns virtually all of the stock in Evans Welding and Fabricating, Inc. (hereinafter "Evans Welding"). In 1973, Evans Welding obtained a permit to drill an oil and gas well, which became known as Evans Well No. 1, on the real estate owned by Evans.

In 1977 Evans leased the oil and gas rights to the Evans Well No. 1 to Earl and Delphine Bevins (hereinafter the "Bevins"). The 1977 lease between Evans and the Bevins was for ten years or for so long as gas was being produced in paying quantities. The production of gas ceased in October of 1989 at Evans Well No. 1. Around that time the relationship between the parties deteriorated.

More specifically, Evans, who lived on the real estate, accused the Bevins of not complying with certain terms of the lease and damaging the well. The Bevins accused Evans of repeated interference with their right to produce gas from the well. As a result of this disagreement, the Bevins have initiated four actions against Evans over the past seven years.

1989--First Action--Bevins v. Evans

The Bevins filed the first action in 1989 seeking damages which resulted from Evans' interference with the operation of the well. Evans filed a counter-claim alleging that the Bevins had violated the lease agreement. After a hearing was held before the circuit court, both the complaint and the counterclaim were dismissed for failure of proof. More specifically, the circuit court found that the Bevins failed to prove that the well could not be revived. The circuit court also found that Evans' claim for a share of the proceeds beyond that written in the 1977 lease was barred by the parol evidence rule and the statute of limitations. This Court denied Evans' petition for appeal of that ruling.

1991--Second and Third Actions--Bevins v. Evans

The Bevins filed a second action in 1991 seeking a mandatory injunction to stop Evans from blocking their access to the well. The Bevins also filed a third action in 1991 seeking a declaration that the 1977 lease was valid and seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The circuit court consolidated for trial the second and third actions filed by the Bevins. Before the trial of the 1991 actions could take place, however, the circuit court found the existence of a settlement agreement which included a new oil and gas lease. The settlement agreement and oil and gas lease were incorporated by reference in the May 19, 1993 order entitled "Final Order Enforcing Settlement." Neither party appealed the May 19, 1993 order.

On October 3, 1993, the Bevins contracted with Mountaineer Gas Company to sell the gas from the well. However, because of ongoing problems between Evans and the Bevins, Mountaineer Gas Company has not taken any gas from the well according to the Bevins.

1994--Fourth Action--Bevins v. Evans

As a result, in 1994 the Bevins filed yet another action against Evans, the fourth action, seeking damages for inter alia, slander of title and tortious interference with the lease incorporated by reference in the May 19, 1993 order enforcing settlement. In response, Evans made a motion to dismiss the complaint and a motion for summary judgment in the court below. Evans argued that the May 19, 1993 order of the circuit court was void because it enforced a settlement agreement between the parties when the parties had not agreed to the terms of settlement. Thus, Evans concluded that because the Bevins' fourth action is based upon the May 19, 1993 settlement agreement, it must be dismissed. ³

The circuit court denied both of Evans' motions in orders entered on June 12, 1995 and July 6, 1995, stating that the May 19, 1993 order was a valid, enforceable, final appealable order that neither side appealed. Therefore, Evans filed the petition for a writ of prohibition which is now before this Court seeking to prohibit the circuit court from proceeding with the trial of the Bevins' fourth action.

As noted above, Frank M. Peck, Jr., pro se filed a petition for a writ of prohibition which is now before us. According to the Bevins, Peck is an employee of Evans' company and is a defendant in the pending civil action brought by the Bevins. The cause of action against Peck is based upon, in part, the insulting words statute, W. Va.Code, 55-7-2 [1923], and according to the Bevins, does not concern the May 19, 1993 order. Peck was not a party to the litigation which resulted in the May 19, 1993 order. Nevertheless, Peck appears to argue that the Bevins should be prohibited from asserting the cause of action against him because the May 19, 1993 order is void.

II

The issue before this Court in this prohibition proceeding is whether the May 19, 1993 order is void. More specifically, Evans asserts that there was no true meeting of the minds when the May 19, 1993 order enforcing a settlement was entered. Evans maintains that the circuit court dictated the terms of settlement by "crafting" an oil and gas lease that was not agreed upon by either party. Therefore, Evans concludes that the May 19, 1993 order is void and, therefore, cannot be enforced.

It is clear "that the policy of the law is to encourage settlements." Valloric v. Dravo Corp., 178 W.Va. 14, 18 n. 6, 357 S.E.2d 207, 212 n. 6 (1987). E.g., syl. pt. 1, Moreland v. Suttmiller, 183 W.Va. 621, 397 S.E.2d 910 (1990); syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Vapor Corp. v. Narick, 173 W.Va. 770, 320 S.E.2d 345 (1984); syl. pt. 1, Sanders v. Roselawn Memorial Gardens, Inc., 152 W.Va. 91, 159 S.E.2d 784 (1968). It is also clear that a court may only enforce a settlement when there has been a definite meeting of the minds. E.g., O'Connor v. GCC Beverages, Inc., 182 W.Va. 689, 391 S.E.2d 379 (1990). Thus, we agree with Evans' contention that a court may not enforce a settlement when there has been no meeting of the minds.

However, when we examine whether an order is void we must be mindful that "[t]he general rule is that there is a presumption of regularity of court proceedings; it remains until the contrary appears and the burden is on the person who alleges such irregularity to affirmatively show it." Syl pt. 1, State ex rel. Massey v. Boles, 149 W.Va. 292, 140 S.E.2d 608 (1965). See also Kimball v. Walden, 171 W.Va. 579, 582, 301 S.E.2d 210, 214 (1983). Cf. syl. pt. 2, Fortner v. Fortner, 168 W.Va. 70, 282 S.E.2d 48 (1981) (" 'If the court, which rendered the judgment, was a court of general jurisdiction, the presumption is it had jurisdiction of the particular case, and to render the judgment void, this presumption must be overcome by proof.' " (citation omitted)). This general principle is particularly true when a party, who has failed to appeal a final order, brings an extraordinary writ to challenge that final order, given that on appeal

' "[a]n appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of which he complains. This Court will not reverse the judgment of a trial court unless error...