Background
On February 17, 2020, several hundred bricks fell from a two-story Charleston building owned by Philip Dy Chin that housed the former New China Restaurant. The City of Charleston took immediate safety measures, and its code enforcement agency concluded that the building was likely to collapse partially or fully without remedial work. An independent structural evaluation performed on February 19 by an engineer retained by the owners likewise found the building dilapidated, requiring immediate and extensive repairs to protect the public and prevent further collapse, and concluded that repair costs would exceed the building’s value.
On February 21, the City’s Building Commissioner gave final written notice requiring completion of the recommended corrective actions by February 24 and warning that the City would demolish the building at the owners’ expense if an immediate public-safety threat remained. The owners hired a mason to remove fallen and loose exterior bricks but took no further corrective action by the deadline. After the City announced its intent to demolish, the owners moved in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on February 25 for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The circuit court denied that motion, citing both the City’s inspection and the owners’ engineering report, and the owners did not appeal. The City demolished the building shortly afterward and placed a demolition lien on the property.
The owners filed a damages complaint on February 23, 2021. The complaint did not identify specific causes of action or their elements, but generally alleged failure to use the least restrictive alternative, condemnation without due process and just compensation, an ultra vires act, slander of title, and noncompliance with municipal provisions. The City answered, counterclaimed for the demolition-lien balance, and later sought summary judgment on both the complaint and counterclaim. On March 31, 2023, the circuit court ruled for the City, finding that the investigations established an unsafe, dangerous building and that the City complied with applicable state and municipal codes. It entered judgment for the City for $58,539.54, plus costs and interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ April 22, 2024, memorandum decision under West Virginia Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(c), finding no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. Reviewing the summary-judgment ruling de novo, the Court considered the same two assignments of error presented to the ICA: that genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment and that the circuit court improperly treated the denial of interim injunctive relief as res judicata. The Court found no reversible error and expressly agreed with the ICA’s analysis.
On the first issue, the ICA had found the owners’ argument cursory because they cited neither specific authority nor the appellate record to identify remaining genuine issues of material fact. It also concluded that the City acted within its authority: two evaluations showed advanced structural deterioration and the risk of whole or partial collapse, while the owners received notice of the dangerous conditions and necessary repairs but failed to address them timely. The Supreme Court additionally agreed that the owners’ account of allegedly receiving temporary assurance that brick removal was sufficient amounted to a skeletal argument. It did not explain how the asserted events created a material factual dispute supporting relief on any specific cause of action.
On the second issue, the ICA found nothing in the summary-judgment order indicating that the circuit court gave preclusive effect to its earlier denial of a temporary injunction. It further explained that the owners were attempting to reargue the merits of that motion, but the unappealed denial had become final and was outside the scope of the appeal. The Supreme Court’s affirmance left intact both summary judgment against the owners’ damages claims and the City’s judgment on its demolition-lien counterclaim.
Key Takeaways
- The Court affirmed summary judgment for Charleston on the owners’ demolition-related damages claims and on the City’s $58,539.54 demolition-lien counterclaim, plus costs and interest.
- A general assertion that the City acted unreasonably did not establish a preserved appellate argument without authority, record citations, or an explanation connecting the alleged dispute to a specific claim.
- The ICA found no indication that the circuit court actually applied res judicata based on the temporary-injunction denial; the unappealed interim ruling was final and outside the appeal’s scope.
- The decision applied de novo review to summary judgment and summarily affirmed under Rule 21(c), rather than issuing a signed opinion.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that property owners challenging an emergency municipal demolition must connect alleged factual disputes to adequately pleaded claims and support appellate arguments with record citations and legal authority. Assertions about municipal assurances or reasonableness, without that development, may be rejected as skeletal.
The ruling also separates two distinct procedural points: an appellate court may reject a claimed res judicata error because the lower court did not actually rely on preclusion, while an unappealed denial of interim relief cannot simply be reargued through a later summary-judgment appeal. The Court applied the 2017 version of West Virginia Code § 8-12-16 because the relevant events preceded the statute’s June 2020 amendment.