Hillard Dolin and Evelyn Dolin v. Timoth Nunn and Violet Nunn

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed a Greenbrier County Circuit Court judgment resolving a boundary-line dispute between adjoining property owners. The court rejected challenges concerning the exclusion of a survey, the lack of a jury trial, evidentiary rulings, factual findings, denial of a new trial, attorney’s fees and costs, and punitive damages. The court issued the decision as a memorandum decision, finding no substantial question of law or prejudicial error.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the survey prepared by the deceased surveyor where the survey's trustworthiness and compliance with applicable regulations could not be established because the surveyor, his file, and his employees were unavailable.
2. The circuit court did not deny petitioners a jury trial because the record contained no written jury demand as required by the applicable procedural rules.
3. Petitioners waived their challenge to the admission of general character evidence by failing to object at trial.
4. The circuit court's findings concerning the boundary line, fencing, petitioners' conduct, and related factual matters were not clearly erroneous.
5. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners' motion for a new trial.
6. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by awarding respondents attorney fees and costs.
7. The punitive-damages award was proper and was not excessive.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding the survey prepared by the deceased surveyor William E. Dilley.
2. Whether petitioners were improperly denied a jury trial.
3. Whether petitioners waived their challenge to the admission of general character evidence by failing to object.
4. Whether the circuit court's findings concerning the fence, petitioners' conduct, the boundary line, and related factual matters were clearly erroneous.
5. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying petitioners' motion for a new trial.
6. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by awarding respondents attorney fees and costs.
7. Whether the circuit court properly awarded punitive damages and whether the amount was excessive.

Disposition

affirmed