Raymond A. Hinerman, Sr. and Barbara B. Hinerman v. Richard Rodriguez and Rita C. Rodriguez

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed orders entered after a jury verdict for the sellers in a dispute concerning the purchase of a home and alleged water damage. The Court upheld the denial of judicial recusal, attorney’s fees, judgment as a matter of law, and a new trial, concluding that the petitioners had not shown prejudicial error or insufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Holdings

1. The circuit judge did not err by refusing to recuse himself because petitioners' allegations, consisting primarily of complaints about adverse rulings and stern statements from the bench, did not establish a basis for disqualification.
2. The circuit court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the fraud, conspiracy, economic or business duress, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims and dismissing KLM Properties and Kathy Martin.
3. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' request for attorney's fees and costs because the record did not establish bad faith, vexatious, wanton, or oppressive conduct by respondents.
4. The circuit court properly denied petitioners' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and declined to grant a new trial on the breach-of-contract claim.
5. Assignments of error not supported by adequate argument and specific record citations may be disregarded, and issues not addressed in the brief are deemed waived.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit judge should have recused himself based on alleged bias, prejudice, and discourteous conduct.
2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying petitioners' request for attorney's fees and costs based on allegedly vexatious conduct.
3. Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the fraud, conspiracy, duress, and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims and dismissing KLM Properties and Kathy Martin.
4. Whether the circuit court erred in denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a new trial on the breach-of-contract claim.

Disposition

affirmed