Teresa Farmer v. Jeremiah Edward Farmer, individually and in his official capacity as of the Estate of William J. Farmer, Sr., and William Joseph Farmer, Jr.

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

TERESA FARMER,
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 25-ICA-30 (Cir. Ct. Mercer Cnty. Case No. CC-28-2022-C-57)

JEREMIAH EDWARD FARMER, individually FILED
and in his official capacity as Executor
December 4, 2025
of the Estate of WILLIAM J. FARMER, SR.,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
and WILLIAM JOSEPH FARMER, JR., INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
Defendants Below, Respondents OF WEST VIRGINIA

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Teresa Farmer appeals the Circuit Court of Mercer County’s December
20, 2024, order granting judgment to Respondents Jeremiah Edward Farmer, individually
and as Executor of the Estate of William J. Farmer, Sr., and William Joseph Farmer Jr.,
and the circuit court’s April 16, 2025, order denying Ms. Farmer’s motion for relief from
the December 20, 2024, order filed pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of
Civil Procedure. Jeremiah Farmer and William Farmer, Jr., filed a joint response.1 Ms.
Farmer 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 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.

William Farmer, Sr., died testate on March 28, 2022, and at the time of his death
was married to Ms. Farmer. William Farmer Sr., and Ms. Farmer had lived apart for several
months immediately prior to his death. William Farmer, Sr.’s will named his son, Jeremiah
Farmer, as executor and directed that his estate be divided between his two sons, Jeremiah
Farmer and William Farmer, Jr.2 Willam Farmer, Sr.’s will was entered into probate on

1
Ms. Farmer is represented by Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq. Jeremiah Farmer and
William Farmer, Jr., are represented by Derrick W. Lefler, Esq.
2
The will names William Farmer, Sr.’s former spouse, Nancy Farmer, the mother
of Jeremiah Farmer and William Farmer, Jr., as executor and as beneficiary of his estate.
The will further provides that if Nancy Farmer predeceased him, Jeremiah Farmer would
1
March 29, 2022. The will was executed in 2000, prior to his marriage to Ms. Farmer, and
she was not named in the will.

Within days of Jeremiah Farmer’s appointment as executor, Ms. Farmer filed the
underlying civil action asserting claims of fraud, theft, and self-dealing against Jeremiah
Farmer, individually and as the executor of the estate, and against William Farmer, Jr.
Subsequently, Ms. Farmer sought Jeremiah Farmer’s removal as executor in a petition filed
with the Mercer County Commission alleging similar claims of fraud, theft and self-
dealing. In a June 13, 2023, order, the Mercer County Commission denied her request to
remove Jeremiah Farmer as executor.

On June 27, 2022, Jeremiah Farmer filed an appraisement for the estate. The Clerk
of the Mercer County Commission published notice of the estate and the claims bar date
was set for September 12, 2022. On August 18, 2022, Ms. Farmer filed a claim against the
estate alleging money owed for certain items of personal property and for the funeral and
other expenses in the amount of $77,485.00. The claim does not contain any language
indicating that Ms. Farmer was making a claim for an elective share pursuant to West
Virginia Code § 42-3-1 (1995).

Thereafter, by agreed order entered November 17, 2023, the estate matters before
the Mercer County Commission were consolidated with the civil action so that the circuit
court could decide all pending matters between the parties. A bench trial was scheduled for
May 2, 2024, but the parties agreed to forego the bench trial and submit the case to the
circuit court on briefs, deposition testimony and documentary evidence. On December 20,
2024, the circuit court entered an order denying Ms. Farmer’s request to remove Jeremiah
Farmer as executor of the estate, determining that Ms. Farmer failed to prove Jeremiah
Farmer’s actions were improper or amounted to a breach of his fiduciary duties.

Ms. Farmer filed a motion for relief from the December 20, 2024, order pursuant to
Rule 60(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure in circuit court and
contemporaneously appealed the order to this Court. This Court remanded the matter for
the circuit court to rule on Ms. Farmer’s Rule 60(b) motion, and on April 16, 2025, the
circuit court entered an order denying the motion. Both orders are the subject of this appeal.

be named executor, and his estate would share equally between William Farmer, Jr., and
Jeremiah Farmer. William Farmer, Sr., and Nancy Farmer divorced after the will was
executed and the parties do not dispute that after the divorce, Nancy Farmer was no longer
an appointee under the will or a beneficiary of the estate. See West Virginia Code § 41-1-
6 (1993) (“If after executing a will the testator is divorced or his marriage annulled, the
divorce or annulment revokes any disposition or appointment of property made by the will
to the former spouse. . .and any nomination of the former spouse as executor. . .”).
2
We review the December 20, 2024, order granting summary judgment under a de
novo standard. See Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (1994)
(“A circuit court’s entry of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.”).3 The April 16, 2025,
order denying relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) will be reviewed under an abuse of discretion
standard. See Syl. Pt. 4, Vanderpool v. Hunt, 241 W. Va. 254, 823 S.E.2d 526 (2019) (“A
motion to vacate a judgment made pursuant to Rule 60(b), W. Va. R. C[iv]. P., is addressed
to the sound discretion of the court and the court’s ruling on such motion will not be
disturbed on appeal unless there is a showing of an abuse of such discretion.”) With these
standards in mind, we will address Ms. Farmer’s two assignments of error.

Ms. Farmer first asserts that the circuit court erred by not removing Jeremiah Farmer
as executor due to his improper conduct and breach of his fiduciary duties. She argues that
even though she sought reimbursement of funeral and other expenses, Jeremiah Farmer
failed to amend the appraisement forms to identify Ms. Farmer as a beneficiary or list estate
debts to include these expenses, and that these failures are clear violations of his duties as
executor. Additionally, Ms. Farmer contends that Jeremiah Farmer should be removed as
executor because he improperly took estate assets to North Carolina. We disagree with Ms.
Farmer’s arguments.

3
Jeremiah Farmer and William Farmer, Jr., suggest that the standard of review for
the December 20, 2024, order should be the standard used for reviewing an order following
a bench trial. However, the circuit court did not conduct a bench trial. The matter was
submitted for decision on briefs, deposition testimony, and documentary evidence. Further,
the circuit court’s order reflects that it treated the parties’ briefs and submission of evidence
as competing motions for summary judgment.

In addition to this procedural ambiguity, we note that the parties’ agreed order
consolidating the estate matters pending before the Mercer County Commission with
Petitioner’s civil action has complicated the procedure by which the issues on appeal have
reached this court. Specifically, the issue of removal of an executor is vested in the county
commission and would appropriately reach this court after appeal to the circuit court. See
Haines v. Kimble, 221 W. Va. 266, 274-77, 654 S.E.2d 588, 596-99 (2007) (explaining this
procedure). Had this case followed this traditional procedure, the circuit court’s decision
to affirm the county commission’s order declining to remove the executor would be subject
to abuse of discretion review. See, e.g., id. at 279, 654 S.E.2d at 601; George C. Baker Tr.
Dated July 20, 2002 v. Cooper, No. 21-0866, 2022 WL 17444547, at *3 (W. Va. Dec. 6,
2022) (memorandum decision) (“Thus, we find that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that the respondent should remain as executor.”). However,
because Petitioner’s arguments fail even under the less deferential summary judgment
standard, we find that it is unnecessary for us to determine if we should construe the circuit
court’s final order as an appellate review of the county commission’s order declining to
remove Jeremiah Farmer as executor.
3
In West Virginia, a party requesting removal of an executor must meet a high burden
in that removing an executor requires evidence establishing that the executor is
incompetent or that the executor fails or refuses to perform his or her duties. See Haines v.
Kimball, 221 W. Va. 266, 273-74, 654 S.E.2d 588, 595-96 (2007). Regarding an executor’s
fiduciary duties, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has explained that the
executor’s

. . .duty is to manage the estate under his control to the advantage of those
interested in it and to act on their behalf. In the discharge of this duty, the
executor or administrator of a deceased's estate is held to the highest degree
of good faith and is required to exercise the ordinary care and reasonable
diligence which prudent persons ordinarily exercise, under like
circumstances, in their own personal affairs.

Syl. Pt. 1, Latimer v. Mechling, 171 W. Va. 729, 301 S.E.2d 819 (1983).

To support her assertions on appeal, Ms. Farmer presents several examples of
Jeremiah Farmer’s alleged improper conduct. First, she claims that after seeking
reimbursement for funeral expenses, Jeremiah Farmer should have amended the
appraisement forms to identify Ms. Farmer as a beneficiary and to include her funeral
expenses as an estate debt. However, this example does not establish improper conduct
because Ms. Farmer was not named as a beneficiary under the will and the circuit court
ultimately awarded her the funeral expenses. Next, Ms. Farmer asserts that Jeremiah
Farmer acted improperly by not providing her notice of the estate filing. Nevertheless, she
clearly had actual notice of the estate as evidenced by the filing of this lawsuit shortly after
the will was submitted for probate, by the filing of her request with the Mercer County
Commission for Jeremiah Farmer’s removal as executor shortly after the appraisement was
filed, and by the timely filing of her claim against the estate. Further, Ms. Farmer contends
that Jeremiah Farmer took carloads of estate assets to North Carolina, but such conduct
does not establish impropriety or breach of fiduciary duties because an executor has a duty
to gather and protect estate assets. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Ms. Farmer
has not established Jeremiah Farmer’s incompetence or that he failed or refused to perform
his duties as executor pursuant to Haines, and therefore we find no error in the circuit
court’s failure to remove Jeremiah Farmer as executor of the estate.

Ms. Farmer next contends that the circuit court erred in its application of West
Virginia Code § 42-3-4(a) (1995), arguing that she should have been relieved of the
statutory requirements to claim an elective share because Jeremiah Farmer failed to list her
as a beneficiary on the appraisement form and did not properly notify her of the estate
filing. Conversely, Jeremiah Farmer and William Farmer, Jr., argue that Ms. Farmer was
aware of William Farmer, Sr.’s death and the estate filing, so failing to list her as a

4
beneficiary or to properly notify her did not prevent Ms. Farmer from filing an elective
share petition. We agree with Jeremiah Farmer and William Farmer, Jr.

The requirements for electing to take a spouse’s elective share are set forth in West
Virginia Code § 42-3-4(a), which provides:

the election must be made by filing in the court and mailing or delivering to
the personal representative, if any, a petition for the elective share within nine
months after the date of the decedent's death, or within six months after the
probate of the decedent’s will, whichever limitation later expires. The
surviving spouse must serve a copy of the petition for the elective share on,
and must give written notice of the time and place set for hearing to persons
interested in the estate and to the distributees and recipients of portions of the
augmented estate whose interests may be adversely affected by the taking of
the elective share.

Based on our review of the record, Ms. Farmer did not comply with the requirements
of West Virginia Code § 42-3-4(a). She did not file an elective share petition, she did not
provide notice to interested parties, and the matter was never set for hearing. Ms. Farmer
argues that even if the statutory elective share requirements were not met, she should be
excused from the requirements due to the actions of Jeremiah Farmer as executor.
However, Ms. Farmer does not cite to any legal authority providing an exception to the
statutory requirements for filing an elective share petition. In addition, Jeremiah Farmer’s
actions did not prevent her from properly filing an elective share petition. She had actual
knowledge of the estate filing, had already filed her funeral expenses claim, and had ample
opportunity to comply with West Virginia Code § 42-3-4(a). Ms. Farmer simply failed to
do so within the prescribed time frame.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the circuit court denying Ms. Farmer’s
request to remove Jeremiah Farmer as executor of the estate and we find no error in the
circuit court’s conclusion that Ms. Farmer is not entitled to an elective share of the estate.
For the same reasons, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Ms. Farmer’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the December 20, 2024, order.

Accordingly, the circuit court’s December 20, 2024, and April 16, 2025, orders are
affirmed.

Affirmed.

5
ISSUED: December 4, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

6