Background
Joel Lawson leased a residential property in Kanawha County to Mindi Dillon. When Dillon defaulted on monthly rent payments in spring 2025, Lawson filed a wrongful occupation action in magistrate court. Following a May 13, 2025 hearing, the magistrate court entered judgment for Lawson, awarding him possession of the property, $1,400 in unpaid rent, court costs, and ordering Dillon to vacate by May 31, 2025.
Dillon appealed the magistrate court judgment to circuit court on May 30, 2025. The circuit court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for June 12, 2025. The hearing notice, dated June 2 and entered by the clerk’s office on June 5, was mailed to both parties on June 6. Lawson’s notice was not delivered by the U.S. Postal Service until June 9—only three days before the hearing. Lawson was out of town on work-related business from June 9 through June 12 and did not return until after the hearing concluded. When the hearing was held on June 12, only Dillon appeared. The circuit court then vacated the magistrate court judgment and struck the matter from its docket.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the circuit court erred in vacating the magistrate judgment. The court found that Lawson was denied adequate notice of the appeal hearing in violation of procedural due process. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article III, § 10 of the West Virginia Constitution both require that no person be deprived of property “without due process of law,” which requires notice and an opportunity to be heard appropriate to the circumstances.
The court cited Johnson v. Kirik, a 2015 West Virginia Supreme Court decision with substantially similar facts, holding that notice received only three days before a hearing while a party is out of town for work does not provide adequate notice or a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Similarly, in this case, delivering notice to Lawson on June 9 while he was out of town until June 12 failed to satisfy the fundamental due process requirement of an opportunity to be heard.
The court vacated the circuit court’s June 13, 2025 order and remanded the case for a new trial with adequate notice to both parties.
Key Takeaways
- Procedural due process requires both notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard before deprivation of property through adjudication.
- Notice served only three days before a hearing while a party is out of town does not satisfy constitutional due process requirements.
- Trial courts must ensure adequate notice periods, particularly where travel or circumstances prevent timely receipt.
- Self-represented litigants may raise constitutional due process claims for the first time on appeal when the issue is controlling to the resolution of the case.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that compliance with due process protections is mandatory in civil proceedings, particularly in eviction and wrongful occupation cases. Trial courts cannot proceed with hearings where a party lacks meaningful notice and opportunity to prepare, even when dealing with defaults. The requirement applies equally to magistrate court appeals in circuit court.
For landlords and property owners pursuing eviction proceedings, the decision underscores that appellate courts will carefully scrutinize whether all parties received genuinely adequate notice. Clerks’ offices must ensure sufficient time between notice and hearings, accounting for mail delivery times and the circumstances of service. The decision also clarifies that procedural constitutional claims may be considered even when first raised on appeal in cases involving self-represented parties.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.