In Re: A Purported Lien or Claim Against Keith William DeBlasio

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed orders denying Keith William DeBlasio’s motions to invalidate liens recorded by a homeowners association and denying his motions for costs and reconsideration. The court held that the association’s liens were consensual because DeBlasio’s deeds incorporated the subdivision’s covenants and restrictions, and that a non-lawyer corporate manager could record liens on the association’s behalf. The court also held that the statutory procedure for fraudulent liens did not permit challenges to the underlying assessment claims and that DeBlasio was not entitled to costs.

Holdings

1. A corporate manager or officer may record a lien on behalf of the corporation because recording a lien is distinct from representing another person in a court proceeding, and lien recordation may fall within the regular duties of a corporate manager.
2. Proceedings under Chapter 38, Article 16 of the West Virginia Code concern the validity of the lien itself and do not permit adjudication of the validity of the underlying claim represented by the lien.
3. The liens were consensual liens because DeBlasio's deeds expressly subjected his property interests to the recorded covenants and restrictions in the Declaration.
4. DeBlasio was not entitled to costs because none of the liens was invalidated as nonconsensual or fraudulent.
5. Res judicata barred DeBlasio from relitigating the association's authority to impose the assessments and the validity of particular assessments because those issues had been decided in the parties' prior litigation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a non-lawyer corporate officer could record liens on behalf of a homeowners association.
2. Whether West Virginia's statutory procedure for invalidating fraudulent common-law or property liens permits the court to decide the validity of the underlying assessment claims.
3. Whether the deeds established that the liens were consensual liens outside the statutory procedure for fraudulent nonconsensual liens.
4. Whether DeBlasio was entitled to costs under West Virginia Code § 38-16-404.
5. Whether the circuit court properly denied DeBlasio's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration and rejected his additional challenges to the assessments.

Disposition

affirmed