Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tribeca Lending Corp. v. James E. McCormick

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided June 18, 2013No. 12-0150Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDavis, Justice

I agree wholeheartedly with the majority’s resolution of the first certified question. The majority is correct in concluding that the statute of limitations provided by W. Va.Code § 38-l-4a (2006) (Repl.Vol.2011) simply does not apply to the facts of this case. However, I part ways with my brethren with respect to the majority’s disposition of the second certified question. I absolutely cannot agree with the majority’s determination that the counterclaims asserted by Mr. McCormick in response to Tribeca’s first and second unlawful detainer actions were untimely.

In this case, Tribeca filed an…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Kincaid v. MangumWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. UMWA Ex Rel. Trumka v. KingdonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Forshey v. JacksonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2009
  4. Bowers v. WurzburgWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State Ex Rel. Smith v. Kermit Lumber & Pressure Treating Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1997

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API