For Your Data Noone V. Cost Representative Brief
February 05, 2002
Edit
Noone v. Price case brief summary
298 S.E.2d 218 (W. Va. 1982)
CASE FACTS
The homeowners claimed that summary judgment was improperly granted to the neighbors because although the trial courtroom correctly stated the dominion of law, it applied it incorrectly to the homeowners' situation.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom held that in that place was insufficient facts inwards the tape so reversal together with remand was required. In addition, the courtroom held that the trial courtroom would convey to produce upwards one's heed if an following landowner had an obligation exclusively to back upwards his neighbor's belongings inwards its raw or natural condition, or if the following landowner was liable for both the harm to the Earth together with the harm to whatsoever buildings that powerfulness live on on the land.
Recommended Supplements together with Study Aids for Property Law
298 S.E.2d 218 (W. Va. 1982)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant homeowners challenged an social club from the Circuit Court of Fayette County (West Virginia), which determined that the appellee vecino owed a duty of lateral back upwards to the adjoining land, together with granted summary judgment inwards neighbor's favor.CASE FACTS
The homeowners claimed that summary judgment was improperly granted to the neighbors because although the trial courtroom correctly stated the dominion of law, it applied it incorrectly to the homeowners' situation.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom establish that the lower courtroom had improperly awarded summary judgment because the homeowners should convey been allowed to assay out that their Earth was sufficiently potent inwards its natural Earth to back upwards the weight of their house, together with that the deterioration of the retaining wall caused successive parts of the hillside to subside until the ripple final result reached the foundation of their house.
- The neighbors should thence convey been held liable for negligence inwards removing the back upwards required past times their dwelling.
- The courtroom stated that, inwards social club to recover, the homeowners had to assay out that the disrepair of the retaining wall would convey led ineluctably to the subsidence of their Earth inwards its natural condition.
- If, on the other hand, the Earth would non convey subsided exactly for the weight of the house, so the homeowners would recover nothing.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom held that in that place was insufficient facts inwards the tape so reversal together with remand was required. In addition, the courtroom held that the trial courtroom would convey to produce upwards one's heed if an following landowner had an obligation exclusively to back upwards his neighbor's belongings inwards its raw or natural condition, or if the following landowner was liable for both the harm to the Earth together with the harm to whatsoever buildings that powerfulness live on on the land.
Recommended Supplements together with Study Aids for Property Law