Background
Daniel Barry Steffen, a Texas resident, died in 2022 while incarcerated in that state. His only significant asset was a parcel of real property in Cabell County, West Virginia. His brother, Michael Shawn Steffen, sought to probate Daniel’s 2016 Texas will directly in Cabell County under West Virginia Code § 41-5-4, which permits probate in the county where devised real estate is situated when the testator had no West Virginia residence.
Scott Caserta, the Clerk of the Cabell County Commission, repeatedly refused to accept the will for probate. Caserta’s position was that Michael first had to probate the will in Texas — Daniel’s state of domicile — and then pursue an ancillary probate proceeding in West Virginia under § 41-5-13. Michael retained counsel and, after further failed attempts, filed a mandamus action in Cabell County Circuit Court to compel acceptance of the will.
The circuit court granted the writ of mandamus on April 15, 2024, ordering Caserta to accept the will for probate. However, the court summarily denied Michael’s accompanying request for attorney’s fees without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining that denial. Michael appealed solely on the attorney’s fees issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated the portion of the circuit court’s order denying attorney’s fees and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that, although the circuit court had discretion to award or deny attorney’s fees following a successful mandamus action, it was required to articulate findings of fact and conclusions of law supporting its decision — and failed to do so. Without any explanation of the court’s reasoning, meaningful appellate review was impossible.
The court directed the circuit court on remand to evaluate the attorney’s fee request under the framework established in State ex rel. West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, 193 W. Va. 650, 458 S.E.2d 88 (1995). Under Highlands, attorney’s fees in a mandamus action may be awarded in two circumstances: (1) where a public official deliberately and knowingly refused to perform a clear legal duty — in which case a presumption in favor of fees arises — or (2) where the failure was not a knowing disregard of duty, in which case the court must weigh the clarity of the legal obligation, whether the ruling served the broader public interest, and the petitioner’s financial resources relative to the government’s.
The court did not disturb any other aspect of the circuit court’s April 15, 2024 order, including the mandamus relief itself. The decision was unanimous, with all five justices concurring.
Key Takeaways
- A circuit court that grants mandamus relief against a public official must apply the Highlands two-track framework — deliberate refusal versus non-knowing failure — when ruling on a request for attorney’s fees, and must support its ruling with findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- A summary denial of attorney’s fees with no stated rationale is procedurally deficient under Rule 52(a) and will be vacated on appeal as an impediment to meaningful review.
- Where a testator dies out of state with no West Virginia domicile but leaves real property in West Virginia, direct probate in the county where that property is located may be proper under § 41-5-4 without first initiating proceedings in the decedent’s home state.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that West Virginia courts cannot dispose of attorney’s fee requests in mandamus cases with a bare denial. Public officials and their counsel should understand that a successful mandamus petitioner has a structured, precedent-driven entitlement to seek fees, and the deliberateness of the official’s refusal directly affects whether a presumption in favor of fees applies. Clerks and other ministerial officers who decline to perform statutory duties — even in good faith — face real exposure to fee awards if their position is ultimately wrong.
The case also offers useful guidance on West Virginia’s probate jurisdiction statute. Practitioners handling estates of out-of-state decedents with West Virginia real property should be aware that § 41-5-4 may support direct primary probate in West Virginia without an antecedent foreign proceeding, particularly where the real property is the decedent’s only West Virginia asset and there is no competing domiciliary probate already underway.