Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Carol Kinsinger v. Todd Pethel

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 2014No. 13-0892Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Ketchum

I agree that Mr. Pethel should not be held in contempt. I disagree with our holding that Ms. Kinsinger shall be granted a money judgment against Mr. Pethel in the amount of $4,018.15, less any appropriate credits.

The doctrine of laches bars claims when a person unreasonably delays in asserting a claim and the delay works to the disadvantage or prejudice the defendant. Grose v. Grose, 222 W.Va. 722, 671 S.E.2d 727 (2008). In finding that Ms. Kinsinger’s claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, the circuit courts order focused on her six-year delay in submitting an order granting her a share…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Grose v. GroseWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API