Joseph E. Hunter v. Joshua Burdette

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
April 29, 2025
JOSEPH E. HUNTER,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Plaintiff Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 24-ICA-375 (Cir. Ct. Kanawha Cnty. Case No. CC-20-2022-C-779)

JOSHUA BURDETTE,
Defendant Below, Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Joseph E. Hunter appeals the September 9, 2024, order of the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County which found that he did not meet his burden of proof to establish
his claim to the property at issue in this matter. Respondent Joshua Burdette filed a
response.1 Mr. Hunter filed a reply. The issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred
in granting judgment in favor of Mr. Burdette.

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.

On September 15, 2022, Mr. Hunter filed a pro se complaint against Mr. Burdette
in the circuit court, alleging that he is the rightful owner of the parcel of property on which
Mr. Burdette resides. Mr. Burdette filed an answer denying Mr. Hunter’s claim to the
property, and asserted a counterclaim for harassment.

The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing on April 11, 2024, during which Mr.
Hunter’s then-counsel, O. Gay Elmore, Jr., Esq., appeared with him. Mr. Hunter presented
witness testimony from Timothy Keely, a licensed surveyor, and testified on his own
behalf. Mr. Burdette appeared and was permitted to cross-examine both witnesses. The
court directed Mr. Hunter to prepare a title examination of the subject property and to bring
the results to the next hearing, scheduled for August 9, 2024. Mr. Elmore withdrew from
his representation of Mr. Hunter shortly thereafter.

1
Both parties are self-represented.

1
At the August 9, 2024, hearing, Mr. Hunter failed to produce the title examination
to the court as instructed. Mr. Burdette called three witnesses. First, Brian Burdette testified
that he came into ownership of the property by deed dated October 30, 2017. Second,
Randall Campbell, who works in the mapping department of the Kanawha County
Assessor’s Office, testified as to his prior interactions with the parties and his knowledge
regarding surveyor Randy Crace’s relevant work. Mr. Campbell testified that Mr. Crace
performed a survey on the property, revealing inaccuracies on the Assessor’s tax map, and
that once the Assessor’s Office received Mr. Crace’s survey, it updated the tax map
accordingly. Finally, Mr. Burdette called John Barth, Mapping Supervisor for the
Assessor’s Office, who concurred with Mr. Campbell’s testimony and stated that Mr.
Hunter had been in the Assessor’s Office numerous times over the years. Mr. Barth stated
he never understood Mr. Hunter’s factual basis for his claim to the subject property, and
he disagreed with Mr. Hunter’s interpretation of the tax maps. Mr. Hunter was permitted
to cross-examine these witnesses. The circuit court again directed Mr. Hunter to present a
title examination of the premises by August 30, 2024. He again failed to do so. Mr. Burdette
also failed to present evidence of his counterclaim, and the circuit court found that he chose
not to prosecute the matter.

The circuit court found that Mr. Hunter, failing twice to present the ordered title
examination, did not meet his burden of proof. Further, it held that the testimony and
evidence presented at the court’s hearings did not substantiate his claim. Accordingly, in
its September 9, 2024, Final Order, the court found that Mr. Hunter’s claim failed and
granted judgment in favor of Mr. Burdette. It is from that order that Mr. Hunter now
appeals.2

Our standard of review in this matter is as follows: “This Court reviews the circuit
court’s final order and ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard. We
review challenges to findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard; conclusions of
law are reviewed de novo.” Syl. Pt. 6, In re Donald M., 233 W. Va. 416, 758 S.E.2d 769
(2014) (citing Syl. Pt. 4, Burgess v. Porterfield, 196 W. Va. 178, 469 S.E.2d 114 (1996)).

On appeal, Mr. Hunter raises four assignments of error. First, he argues that Mr.
Elmore, who withdrew from his case, was “infringed upon of being [his] helper in this
matter” after he “offered genuine evidence of ownership” because the circuit court “told
him he didn’t file [Mr. Hunter’s] case.” Second, he states that the circuit court refused to
accept his evidence of ownership presented at the hearing, including his deed, chain of title,
and surveyor map. Third, he argues the circuit court allowed Mr. Burdette to present a tax
map as evidence, which he claims is forbidden. Finally, he claims that the court
discriminated against him when it ruled that the property belonged to Mr. Burdette because
Mr. Burdette showed no ownership.

2
The order also dismissed Mr. Burdette’s counterclaim against Mr. Hunter, but this
ruling is not appealed herein.
2
After asserting each of these assignments of error, Mr. Hunter provides no further
explanation or any arguments to support them. For example, Mr. Hunter does not identify
with specificity the evidence his former attorney, Mr. Elmore, allegedly produced on his
behalf. Nor does he explain how Mr. Elmore’s withdrawal from representation is related
to the order on appeal or any alleged error by the circuit court. Regarding the second
assignment of error, Mr. Hunter has not identified any deed, chain of title, or map that
supports his position, nor pointed to anything in the record showing that the circuit court
refused to accept his evidence at either evidentiary hearing. As to the third assignment of
error, Mr. Hunter offers no supporting facts or law to explain how Mr. Burdette’s
presentation of a tax map as evidence represents an error by the circuit court. Similarly, we
cannot discern how Mr. Hunter alleges the circuit court discriminated against him in its
ruling, as alleged in the fourth assignment of error, because there are no facts, laws,
citations to the record, or even basic arguments made in support that can assist our
understanding. As we have observed previously, we cannot consider indecipherable
arguments made in appellate briefs. See Vogt v. Macy’s, Inc., 22-ICA-162, 2023 WL
4027501, at *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) (explaining that appellate
courts frequently refuse to address undeveloped, perfunctory, or cursory arguments on
appeal.); 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). Because Mr.
Hunter’s brief is so lacking in basic information outlining his allegations of error by the
circuit court in its final order and its judgment for Mr. Burdette, we cannot find that the
circuit court abused its discretion based on anything raised by Mr. Hunter.

Accordingly, finding no basis to disturb the circuit court’s ruling, we affirm its
September 9, 2024, order.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: April 29, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

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

3