Judith D. Ward v. Susan K. Ward
2016 W. Va. LEXIS 137, 783 S.E.2d 873, 236 W. Va. 753 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner who knowingly permits and acquiesces to another party making significant, permanent improvements to their land must compensate that party for the value of those improvements upon ejectment to prevent unjust enrichment, even if the improver was aware they did not hold title to the property.
Facts:
- In 1999, Judith Ward, the owner of a parcel of land, allowed her son, Gary Ward, and his wife, Susan Ward, to build a log cabin home on a portion of her property.
- Gary and Susan Ward paid $50,000 for the log cabin home kit and incurred additional expenses for building and maintenance.
- The parties never subdivided the property or entered into a written agreement memorializing the arrangement.
- For approximately fifteen years, from 1999 until April 2014, Judith Ward consented to Susan and Gary Ward living in the log cabin on her property.
- During this time, Susan and Gary Ward gave Judith Ward money to pay for the property taxes associated with the cabin.
- Gary Ward died in February 2014.
- In April 2014, Judith Ward served a 'Notice to Quit' upon Susan Ward, demanding she vacate the log cabin home.
- Susan Ward refused to vacate the property, claiming an entitlement to the log home she had purchased and built.
Procedural Posture:
- Judith Ward filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Susan Ward in the Circuit Court of Hampshire County (trial court).
- Susan Ward filed her answer pro se.
- Judith Ward moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The circuit court granted Judith Ward's motion for unlawful detainer, affirming her right to the property.
- The circuit court also ruled that Judith Ward would be unjustly enriched and ordered her to pay Susan Ward $50,000 for the log cabin.
- The circuit court conditioned Judith Ward's recovery of the property upon her payment of the $50,000 to Susan Ward.
- Judith Ward (appellant) appealed the circuit court's order requiring payment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner who permitted her son and daughter-in-law to build a log cabin on her property have to compensate the daughter-in-law for the value of the cabin upon evicting her, in order to avoid unjust enrichment?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Justice
Yes. A landowner who knowingly permits and consents to another party building a home on their land must compensate them for the value of the improvement upon eviction to avoid unjust enrichment. Although Judith Ward, as the fee simple owner, has a statutory right to eject Susan Ward under the unlawful detainer statute, principles of equity prevent her from being unjustly enriched by retaining the valuable log cabin for which she did not pay. Citing precedent like Hall v. Hall, the court found that compensation for improvements is required when the owner was aware of the improvements and acquiesced to them. Here, Judith not only knew of the cabin's construction but permitted and encouraged it, consenting to the living arrangement for fifteen years. This long-term acquiescence makes it inequitable for her to take the improvement without compensation, creating a situation analogous to cases involving a mistaken belief of ownership. Therefore, Susan is entitled to recover the value of the improvements from Judith, and under Somerville v. Jacobs, she has a lien on the property, making it proper for the court to condition Judith's repossession upon payment for the cabin.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and arguably expands the doctrine of unjust enrichment concerning improvements to real property in West Virginia. It extends the remedy beyond the traditional context of an improver acting under a bona fide mistake of title to situations involving long-term permissive use and acquiescence by the landowner. The ruling establishes that a landowner's active and prolonged consent can create an equitable obligation to compensate for improvements, even if the improver knew they lacked legal ownership. This precedent will be significant in disputes arising from informal, intra-familial arrangements concerning real property, protecting individuals who invest substantial resources based on verbal understandings rather than formal legal agreements.
