Dinah Rose v. Nora Church Trivett

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
April 29, 2025
DINAH ROSE,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Defendant Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 24-ICA-383 (Cir. Ct. Mercer Cnty. Case No. CC-28-2024-C-120)

NORA CHURCH TRIVETT,
Plaintiff Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Dinah Rose appeals the August 16, 2024, order from the Circuit Court of
Mercer County granting judgment in favor of Respondent Nora Church Trivett and
ordering Ms. Rose to vacate the premises in question. Ms. Trivett filed a response.1 No
reply was filed.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate
under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

From the outset, we note that the record on appeal is sparse, which limits this Court’s
recitation of the facts. On February 7, 2018, Ms. Trivett and her then husband Harold
Church entered a rent-to-own contract with Ms. Rose and Ronald Rose to sell property
located in Princeton, West Virginia, for $72,000.00. After entering this contract, Ms. Trivett
acquired Mr. Church’s interest and became the sole owner of this property. The contract
required the Roses to pay rental payments of $1,000.00 per month until the total sum was paid.
When all payments were made, the Roses would receive total ownership of the property.
However, Ms. Trivett alleges the Roses defaulted in their payment obligations when they made
their last payment of $500.00 on October 12, 2023. Ms. Trivett alleges the unpaid balance
under the contract is $36,600.00. On January 31, 2024, Ms. Trivett sent a letter to the Roses
notifying them that they were in default and had breached the rent-to-own contract. Ms. Trivett
then ordered the Roses to vacate the premises by March 4, 2024.

1
Ms. Rose is self-represented. Ms. Trivett is represented by John W.
Feuchtenberger, Esq.

1
On May 8, 2024, Ms. Trivett filed her complaint in the Circuit Court of Mercer County
alleging the Roses breached the contract, had fallen behind on payments, and had not properly
maintained the property. Ms. Rose filed an answer. On August 6, 2024, the parties appeared
for a hearing before the circuit court. 2 On August 16, 2024, the circuit court entered an order
finding the Roses violated the terms of the rent-to-own contract, granting judgment in favor of
Ms. Trivett, and ordering the Roses to vacate the property by August 31, 2024. The case was
then dismissed in its entirety. It is from this order that Ms. Rose now appeals.

In addressing the instant appeal, our standard of review is as follows:

In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court,
we apply a two-prong deferential standard of review. We review the final
order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and
we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly
erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.

Syl. Pt. 2, Walker v. W. Va. Ethics Comm’n, 201 W. Va. 108, 110, 492 S.E.2d 167, 169
(1997).

Ms. Rose asserts four assignments of error. 3 First, she argues Ms. Trivett’s case was
dismissed because the magistrate court could not hear the case. Second, Ms. Rose argues
she had money to pay Ms. Trivett and argues she owed only $16,150. Third, she states Ms.
Trivett argued Ms. Rose forged receipts but Ms. Rose argues she provided copies of the
receipts at issue to the court. Finally, Ms. Rose argues Ms. Trivett acted as if she was not
selling the home but then sold the home after the parties went to court. However, Ms. Rose
does not explain how any of these statements demonstrate an error in the circuit court’s
rulings. She does not identify any magistrate court proceeding or prior dismissal to explain
the first assignment of error and the procedural and factual history of this case is unclear
based on the record and the parties’ briefing. Further, there are no supporting points of fact
and law or any citations to the record to assist this Court in its understanding of these
arguments. As we have observed previously, we cannot consider indecipherable arguments
made in appellate briefs. See Vogt v. Macy’s, Inc., No. 22-ICA-162, 2023 WL 4027501, at

2
Although Ms. Rose did not provide a copy of the transcript in her appendix, it
appears from the limited record that the August 6, 2024, hearing was a bench trial.
3
In this case, we note that our review is hampered by Ms. Rose’s failure to file an
appendix that complies with the requirements set forth in Rule 7 of the West Virginia Rules
of Appellate Procedure. Ms. Rose failed to provide this Court with a docket sheet, the
motions filed below, a hearing transcript, exhibits, or any other necessary case related
documents. Nevertheless, we will consider and rule on Ms. Rose’s appeal with the limited
information provided.

2
*4 (W. Va. Ct. App. June 15, 2023) (memorandum decision) (citing State v. Lilly, 194 W.
Va. 595, 605 n.16, 461 S.E.2d 101, 111 n.16 (1995)); see also Megan W. v. Robert R., No.
23-ICA-353, 2024 WL 1592600, at *5 (W. Va. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2024) (memorandum
decision) (“It is well established that, ‘[a] skeletal “argument,” really nothing more than an
assertion, does not preserve a claim[.]’”) (quoting State v. Lambert, 236 W. Va. 80, 100,
777 S.E.2d 649, 669 (2015)). Moreover, as our Supreme Court of Appeals has held,

An appellant must carry the burden of showing error in the judgment of
which he complains. This Court will not reverse the judgment of a trial court
unless error affirmatively appears from the record. Error will not be
presumed, all presumptions being in favor of the correctness of the judgment.

Syl. Pt. 5, Morgan v. Price, 151 W. Va. 158, 150 S.E.2d 897 (1966); Cobble v. Lester, No.
24-ICA-201, 2024 WL 5201017, at *2 (W. Va. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2024) (memorandum
decision). Ms. Rose has failed to develop her arguments, and the briefing and record
contain no factual or legal support. Accordingly, she has not met her burden, and we cannot
find any error in the circuit court’s order based on these unsupported assignments of error.

Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s August 16, 2024, order.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 29, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge S. Ryan White

3