Avrial Arnetta Sayre v. Jacob Hayes Taylor

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
June 6, 2025
AVRIAL ARNETTA SAYRE,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 24-ICA-307 (Cir. Ct. Jackson Cnty. Case No. CC-18-2021-C-21)

JACOB HAYES TAYLOR,
Defendant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Avrial Arnetta Sayre appeals a June 7, 2024, order from the Circuit Court
of Jackson County granting Respondent Jacob Hayes Taylor’s Motion for Summary
Judgment and the circuit court’s July 24, 2024, order denying Ms. Sayre’s objection to the
entry of the order granting summary judgment. Mr. Taylor filed a response.1 Ms. Sayre did
not file a reply.

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 there is error in the circuit court’s orders but no substantial
question of law. For the reasons set forth below, a memorandum decision vacating the
orders and remanding to the circuit court for further proceedings is appropriate under Rule
21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Ms. Sayre and Mr. Taylor were married on January 11, 2016, and share two minor
children. Ms. Sayre alleges the couple separated on August 1, 2017, as a result of domestic
violence. After their separation, Ms. Sayre alleges Mr. Taylor began stalking her. On April
15, 2019, Mr. Taylor followed Ms. Sayre in her vehicle while she drove their two children
and caused a motor vehicle wreck in which he rear-ended Ms. Sayre’s car. Ms. Sayre’s car
was determined to be a total loss as a result of the collision and their children’s car seats
were damaged. Ms. Sayre alleges Mr. Taylor was indicted for criminal charges as a result
of this incident.

At the time of this incident, Mr. Taylor was insured by GEICO Secure Insurance
Company (“GEICO”). Mr. Taylor asserts that, on June 25, 2019, GEICO paid the property

1
Ms. Sayre is represented by James M. Pierson, Esq. Mr. Taylor is represented by
Dwayne E. Cyrus, Esq., and Aaron J. Scarr, Esq.

1
damage claim on the policy held by Mr. Taylor and paid off Ms. Sayre’s car loan because
it was declared a total loss. Additionally, GEICO allegedly provided Ms. Sayre with a
rental vehicle following the wreck and agreed to cover the property damage to the
children’s car seats. Mr. Taylor also alleges that Ms. Sayre signed a Secure Power of
Attorney on June 26, 2019, to appoint GEICO as an attorney-in-fact for the purposes of
handling title of her damaged vehicle to pay the property damage claim.

On April 13, 2021, Ms. Sayre filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County alleging claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction
of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with parental rights, and the
tort of outrage against Mr. Taylor and various members of his family.2 On April 23, 2021,
Ms. Sayre filed an amended complaint which is the operative complaint in this matter. 3
The parties then engaged in discovery.4 On October 30, 2023, and prior to the close of
discovery, Mr. Taylor filed his Motion for Summary Judgment arguing Ms. Sayre was not
entitled to double recovery for her property damage claims because GEICO had already
settled this claim. Mr. Taylor further argued that summary judgment should be granted
because of Ms. Sayre’s inability to supplement discovery or provide any proof of her
alleged injuries; because she failed to substantiate her claims with evidence; and because
many of the allegations she relied on were unrelated to the incident and fell outside the
applicable two-year statute of limitations. This motion was set for hearing on December 7,
2023. However, on November 28, 2023, Ms. Sayre’s counsel, James Pierson, filed a motion
to withdraw from representation because the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
temporarily suspended his ability to practice law. The circuit court granted the motion and
allowed Mr. Pierson to withdraw in an order entered on November 29, 2023. The summary
judgment hearing was then rescheduled for February 8, 2024.

On February 5, 2024, Ms. Sayre filed a notice of appearance for her new counsel,
Kenneth Starcher III, along with a response to Mr. Taylor’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, and a Motion to Continue requesting additional time to fully prepare for the
hearing. The circuit court granted the motion to continue on February 6, 2024. On February
15, 2024, Mr. Taylor filed his reply to his motion for summary judgment. The hearing on
Mr. Taylor’s motion for summary judgment was reset for May 15, 2024, and notice was

2
Ms. Sayre’s complaint also alleges that Mr. Taylor’s family members harassed and
intimidated her and made numerous false reports to various government agencies in an
attempt to cause her to lose custody of her children.
3
The operative complaint is not included in the record before this Court.
4
It is unclear from the record when discovery began or ended. However, it appears
to be undisputed that Mr. Taylor’s summary judgment motion was filed while discovery
was ongoing.

2
issued to all parties. However, Ms. Sayre and her counsel failed to appear at this hearing
and the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Taylor at that hearing. On
June 7, 2024, the circuit court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Mr.
Taylor and held it had reviewed the record and determined there was no genuine issue as
to any material fact because Ms. Sayre’s response did not identify any “product or action
of said Defendant at issue in this case or offered any witnesses for deposition with regard
to any such product or action.” The circuit court allowed Ms. Sayre twenty-one days to
object to the ruling and to show good cause for why her counsel did not appear at the May
15, 2024, hearing. The order further stated it would become final if no objection was filed
after the expiration of the twenty-one-day period.

On June 11, 2024, the circuit court held a remote scheduling conference, and Ms.
Sayre and her substitute counsel also failed to appear for this hearing. However, Ms.
Sayre’s former counsel James Pierson appeared and informed the circuit court that he
planned to reappear to represent Ms. Sayre as his suspension from the practice of law had
been lifted. At the remote hearing, the circuit court determined that the Order Granting
Summary Judgment would continue to remain in effect, allowing time for Mr. Pierson to
file his notice of appearance and any objection by Ms. Sayre showing good cause for the
failure to appear. The circuit court also set the matter for an in-person status hearing on
July 23, 2024. On June 25, 2024, Ms. Sayre, by her counsel James Pierson, filed an
Objection to Entry of the Order Granting Summary Judgment. On July 8, 2024, Mr. Taylor
filed a Response to the Objection, which reiterated that Ms. Sayre and her former counsel
had failed to show any good cause that constituted excusable neglect for the failure to
appear at the summary judgment hearing.

On July 23, 2024, the parties appeared for the in-person status hearing. At the
hearing, Ms. Sayre requested that the circuit court set aside the Order Granting Summary
Judgment on the basis that discovery was still needed, that there were genuine issues of
material fact, and that prior counsel’s failure to appear constituted excusable neglect. The
circuit court heard arguments from both parties and then overruled Ms. Sayre’s objection.
It held that it had reviewed the relevant pleadings and determined there was no genuine
issue of material fact. On July 24, 2024, the circuit court entered an order holding there
was no genuine issue of material fact and that Ms. Sayre failed to offer good cause for her
former counsel’s failure to appear pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of
Civil Procedure. Ms. Sayre now appeals the circuit court’s June 7, 2024, order and its July
24, 2024, order.

Our review of a circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is de novo. Syl. Pt. 1,
Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994). In conducting a de novo review,
this Court applies the same standard for granting summary judgment that a circuit court
must apply: “[a] motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that
there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable
to clarify the application of the law.” United Bank, Inc. v. Blosser, 218 W. Va. 378, 383,

3
624 S.E.2d 815, 820 (2005) (quoting Painter, 192 W. Va. at 190, 451 S.E.2d at 756, syl. pt.
2). “Summary judgment is appropriate if, from the totality of the evidence presented . . .
the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the
case that it has the burden to prove.” Syl. Pt. 2, Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va.
52, 459 S.E.2d 329 (1995). “[T]he party opposing summary judgment must satisfy the
burden of proof by offering more than a mere ‘scintilla of evidence’ and must produce
evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in a nonmoving party’s favor.” Id. at 60,
459 S.E.2d at 337.

On appeal, Ms. Sayre asserts five assignments of error. First, she argues the circuit
court erred in granting Mr. Taylor’s motion for summary judgment. Second, she argues the
circuit court failed to make specific findings to justify its ruling, Third, she argues the
circuit court erred when it found there was no genuine issue of material fact. Fourth, she
argues the circuit court erred when it failed to consider Ms. Sayre’s June 25, 2024,
objection to the order granting summary judgment. Finally, she argues the circuit court
erred when it found that Ms. Sayre and her counsel lacked good cause for failing to appear
at the May 15, 2024, hearing.

Upon review, the circuit court’s orders neither provide any conclusions of law nor
make any findings of fact to support its judgment. “Although our standard of review for
summary judgment remains de novo, a circuit court's order granting summary judgment
must set out factual findings sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. Findings of
fact, by necessity, include those facts which the circuit court finds relevant, determinative
of the issues and undisputed.” Syl. Pt. 2, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nathaniel Realty,
LLC, 246 W. Va. 676, 874 S.E.2d 788 (2022) (quoting Syl. Pt. 3, Fayette County National
Bank v. Lilly, 199 W. Va. 349, 484 S.E.2d 232 (1997)). Neither of the two summary
judgment orders entered by the court meet this standard or provide an analysis of how there
were no genuine issues of material fact remaining for resolution. In their briefing before
this Court, the parties dispute whether GEICO’s prior payments were sufficient to settle
these claims, whether Ms. Sayre’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations,
or whether the circuit court considered Ms. Sayre and her counsel’s failure to appear at the
May 15, 2024, summary judgment hearing as a basis for its ruling. These issues are in
dispute because the circuit court does not clearly state why summary judgment was granted
for Mr. Taylor or what conclusions of law supported its decision. Ms. Sayre argues that
discovery was ongoing and the parties dispute whether additional discovery was necessary,
but neither the circuit court nor the parties state how long discovery was ongoing or how
much time was left in the discovery period. The factual findings and conclusions of law
that the circuit court considered in making this decision are essential in assisting this Court
in resolving these disputes. Therefore, we must vacate the orders on appeal and remand the
matter to the circuit court with directions to address these issues through the entry of an
amended order that contains sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to permit
meaningful appellate review, including the taking of additional evidence, if necessary.

4
Accordingly, the circuit court’s June 7, 2024, and July 24, 2024, orders are vacated,
and this case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this
decision.

Vacated and Remanded for further proceedings.

ISSUED: June 6, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

5