Background
Mary Wenz, a former Virginia resident, retained West Virginia attorney Rachel Hanna to represent her in a potential lawsuit. The attorney-client relationship ended by email in October 2015. Wenz subsequently alleged that Hanna began having an affair with Wenz’s then-husband and that a series of contentious interactions among the three parties followed. Wenz and her husband ultimately divorced in Virginia.
Wenz filed a civil complaint—later amended—against Hanna and her law office in the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County. The circuit court dismissed the suit, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the nature of the claims and the Virginia divorce proceeding, and alternatively ruling that the claims were time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed on a different ground, concluding that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Wenz’s claims were substantively claims for alienation of affection—a tort West Virginia does not recognize. The ICA declined to reach the statute of limitations issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but on yet another basis. The court disagreed with both lower courts that subject matter jurisdiction was lacking, noting that under West Virginia Code § 51-2-2 the circuit court has general jurisdiction over civil matters where the amount in controversy exceeds $7,500, and nothing in the complaint suggested damages fell below that threshold. The subject matter jurisdiction rationale was therefore incorrect as a matter of law.
Nevertheless, invoking the established principle that an appellate court may affirm on any legal ground disclosed by the record, the court held that dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court determined oral argument was unnecessary and issued a summary memorandum decision affirming the result.
Key Takeaways
- West Virginia does not recognize alienation of affection as a tort; claims that are substantively grounded in that theory cannot survive a motion to dismiss regardless of how they are labeled.
- Subject matter jurisdiction in West Virginia circuit courts is governed by W. Va. Code § 51-2-2 and turns on whether the amount in controversy exceeds $7,500—not on whether the underlying tort is recognized by state law.
- An appellate court may affirm a dismissal on any correct legal ground apparent from the record, even if neither lower court identified that ground.
- A Rule 12(b)(6) failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal, rather than a jurisdictional dismissal, was the appropriate vehicle here because the defect was substantive, not jurisdictional.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies that West Virginia courts should not conflate the merits question of whether a claim is legally cognizable with the jurisdictional question of whether the court has power to hear it. Framing the non-recognition of alienation of affection as a subject matter jurisdiction defect—as both lower courts did—was error, and the Supreme Court’s correction preserves important distinctions between 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) dismissals with real consequences for res judicata and refiling rights.
For practitioners, the case reinforces that civil claims arising from an attorney’s personal conduct toward a former client’s spouse will be scrutinized to determine whether they amount to alienation of affection in disguise. Plaintiffs seeking to hold attorneys liable for such conduct must plead recognized torts—such as intentional infliction of emotional distress or breach of fiduciary duty—with sufficient factual specificity to survive a motion to dismiss on the merits.