Adkins, et al. v. Merow, et al.
Annotate this Case IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST
VIRGINIA
SEPTEMBER 1997 TERM
_____________
No. 24135
_____________
RICK ADKINS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs Below
V.
FLORENCE MEROW, ET AL.,
Defendants Below
____________________________________________________________________
Certified Questions from the Circuit Court of
Monongalia County
Honorable Larry V. Starcher, Judge
Civil Action No. 95-C-257
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED
____________________________________________________________________
Submitted: October 14, 1997
Filed: December 15, 1997
James A. Gianola
Gianola, Barnum & Wigal
Morgantown, West Virginia
Attorney for Plaintiffs
W. T. Weber, Jr.
Weber & Weber
Weston, West Virginia
Attorney for Defendants
This Opinion was delivered PER CURIAM.
JUSTICE DAVIS and JUSTICE STARCHER, deeming themselves
disqualified, did not participate in the decision of this case.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. "The
appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and
certified by a circuit court is de novo." Syl. pt. 1,
Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W. Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996).
2. "A
statute that is ambiguous must be construed before it can be
applied." Syl. pt. 1, Farley v. Buckalew, 186 W. Va. 693,
414 S.E.2d 454 (1992).
3. "The
primary object in construing a statute is to ascertain and give
effect to the intent of the Legislature." Syl. pt. 1, Smith
v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).
4. "'It is
the duty of a court to construe a statute according to its true
intent, and give to it such construction as will uphold the law
and further justice. It is as well the duty of a court to
disregard a construction, though apparently warranted by the
literal sense of the words in a statute, when such construction
would lead to injustice and absurdity.' Syl. pt. 2, Click v.
Click, 98 W. Va. 419, 127 S.E. 194 (1925)." Syl. pt. 2,
Pristavec v. Westfield Ins. Co., 184 W. Va. 331, 400 S.E.2d 575
(1990).
Per Curiam:See footnote 1 1
This case
presents six certified questions from the Circuit Court of
Monongalia County, pertaining to the methodology for calculating
annual salary increases for deputy sheriffs as set out in W. Va.
Code, 7-14-17c (1985). The six questions certified by the circuit
court are as follows:
1.
Does W. Va. Code § 7-14-17c entitle a deputy sheriff with one or
more years of service to an annual salary increase in the sum of
$5.00 per month multiplied by each year of service up to a
maximum of 16 years service?
CIRCUIT COURT
ANSWER: Yes.
2.
Is the annual salary increase added to the base salary of the
deputy sheriff each year resulting in a progressive annual
increase in base salary?
CIRCUIT COURT
ANSWER: Yes.
3.
Or, is the annual salary increase to be paid as an annual
increment (bonus) which is not added to the deputy's base pay?
CIRCUIT COURT
ANSWER: No.
4.
Upon reaching 16 years of service, and for employment in years 17
and thereafter, is the deputy sheriff entitled to the incremental
salary increase pursuant to W. Va. Code § 7-14-17c annually for
each year of service thereafter?
CIRCUIT COURT
ANSWER: Yes.
5.
Are the plaintiffs entitled to regular and overtime back pay,
associated taxes and pension contribution at the correct base
annual salary after proper application of the statute?
CIRCUIT COURT
ANSWER: Yes.
6.
Does a 10 year statute of limitations for recovering past due
salary increments under W. Va. Code § 7-14-17c apply to all
deputy sheriffs who were hired under a written contract or county
commission order?
CIRCUIT COURT
ANSWER: Yes.
I.
FACTS
This case was
filed as a declaratory judgment by the plaintiffs, present and
past deputy sheriffs of Monongalia County, against the
defendants, members of the Monongalia County Commission and the
Sheriff, seeking a determination of the rights of the plaintiffs
under W. Va. Code, 7-14-17c. The defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim. The circuit court denied
the motion to dismiss on February 26, 1996. Thereafter the
circuit court certified its questions to this Court.
We have long held
that "[a]ny questions pertaining to a ruling of the trial
court on a motion which challenges the sufficiency of a pleading
are properly certifiable." Syl. pt. 1, Halltown Paperboard
Co. v. C. L. Robinson Corp., 150 W. Va. 624, 148 S.E.2d 721
(1966). "However, such certification will not be accepted
unless there is a sufficiently precise and undisputed factual
record on which the legal issues can be determined." Syl.
pt. 5, in part, Bass v. Coltelli, 192 W. Va. 516, 453 S.E.2d 350
(1994). We have determined that there is a sufficiently precise
and undisputed factual record upon which the legal issues may be
resolved and that "such legal issues ... substantially
control the case." Id. Therefore, the questions are properly
certified under W. Va. Code, 58-5-2 (1967)See footnote 2 2 and are within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
II.
DISCUSSION
"The
appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and
certified by a circuit court is de novo." Syl. pt. 1,
Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W. Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172
(1996). The certified questions direct us to apply the language
of W. Va. Code, 7-14-17c, which provides:See footnote 3 3
Beginning
on and after the effective date of this section, every deputy
sheriff with one year or more of service shall
receive an annual salary increase in the sum of five dollars
per month for each year of service up to a maximum of sixteen
years of service. Any incremental salary increase in effect prior
to the effective date of this section that is more favorable to
the deputy sheriffs entitled to such increase shall remain in
full force and effect to the exclusion of the provisions of this
section.
We have determined that the phrase "annual salary
increase" is susceptible to different meanings to the mind
of reasonable persons. The phrase could mean that an increase in
salary becomes part of the base salary, as argued by the
plaintiffs, or it could mean a salary increase that is nothing
more than a bonus, as argued by the defendants. Therefore the
phrase "annual salary increase" is ambiguous.
This Court has
held that "[a] statute that is ambiguous must be construed
before it can be applied." Syl. pt. 1, Farley v. Buckalew,
186 W. Va. 693, 414 S.E.2d 454 (1992). "The primary object
in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the
intent of the Legislature." Syl. pt. 1, Smith v. State
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W. Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975). Using traditional rules of statutory construction we
turn to the certified questions.
A.
The first
question we have been asked to answer is: "Does W. Va. Code
§ 7- 14-17c entitle a deputy sheriff with one or more years of
service to an annual salary increase in the sum of $5.00 per
month multiplied by each year of service up to a maximum of 16
years service?" This question sufficiently
tracks the language of the statute. However, our response to this
question must be viewed in the context of our construction of the
phrase "annual salary increase," which is discussed in
the second and third questions. With this point of clarification
in view, our answer to question one is yes.
B.
The second
question presented is as follows: "Is the annual salary
increase added to the base salary of the deputy sheriff each year
resulting in a progressive annual increase in base salary?"
The plaintiffs urge this Court to adopt the position that the
phrase "annual salary increase" used in W. Va. Code,
7-14-17c should be interpreted to mean a progressive increase to
the base compensation paid to them by the defendants. The
defendants argue that such an interpretation is fiscally unsound
and inconsistent with its duty to administer the monetary affairs
of the county.
We believe that
the interpretation of "annual salary increase" urged by
the plaintiffs would involve an unwarranted encroachment upon the
fiscal authority, integrity and responsibility of county
commissions. See State ex rel. Brotherton v. Blankenship, 157
W. Va. 100, 122-23, 207 S.E.2d 421, 434-35 (1973) (where
this Court held that attempts by the legislature to expand on the
executive budget by specifying positions and designating salaries
was an encroachment upon "executive power reserved by the
Constitution for that branch of government."). This Court
has previously held that county commissions have "the
responsibility to consider, determine, and fix the aggregate
amounts necessary for salaries
of deputies and assistants of sheriffs." State ex rel.
Dingess v. Scaggs, 156 W. Va. 588, 590, 195 S.E.2d 724, 725
(1973). We have also held that "[t]he county commission is
expressly granted the power to administer the fiscal affairs of
the county by W. Va. Const. art. IX, Sec. 11[.]" Syl. pt. 3,
in part, State ex rel. Lambert v. Cortellessi, 182 W. Va. 142,
386 S.E.2d 640 (1989). It is expressly provided in W. Va. Code,
7-7-7 (1982) that county commissions, with the assistance of
sheriffs, determine the salary of deputy sheriffs. This Court
interpreted the fiscal authority of county commissions under W.
Va. Code, 7-7-7 in Lambert, where it was said:
Under W. Va.
Code, 7-7-7 [1982], each of the named county officers, not the
county commission, has the authority to fix the compensation of
each deputy, assistant or employee in the particular county
office. The county commission, on the other hand, has the
authority under that statute to determine the aggregate sum to be
expended on staff compensation in each of the named county
offices. If the county commission believes that the aggregate sum
for staff compensation requested by a county officer is
excessive, the county commission may refuse to approve the budget
request as a whole and may set a different overall limit to be
spent for staff compensation. In that event the county officer
would be obligated to reduce the number of deputies, assistants
or employees or to reduce the individual compensation of one or
more of them.
Lambert, 182 W. Va. at 146-47, 386 S.E.2d 644-45.
In State ex rel.
Cabell County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Dunfee, 163 W. Va.
539, 258 S.E.2d 117 (1979) a sheriff unilaterally increased the
salary of his deputy sheriffs, but was later forced to reduce the
monthly pay of his deputy sheriffs by $100. The County
Deputy Sheriff's Civil Service Commission found the reduction
unlawful and ordered payment of back pay to the deputies and set
future monthly salaries. The Civil Service Commission then
petitioned the circuit court to enforce the order. The circuit
court denied the petition. This Court ultimately affirmed the
circuit court's ruling. In doing so, we held:
[T]here
is nothing in the deputies' civil service law that would compel a
county commission to carry out a mandate of the Deputy Sheriff's
Civil Service Commission. The association has failed to show any
legal duty of the county commission to appropriate funds for
raises to deputy sheriffs, when the raises were not in the budget
but were given by the sheriff anyway and exceeded his spendable
money. If this were so, sheriffs or any other county officers, by
giving salary increments, could ruin county finances when they
did so without county commission approval. Counties would be
paying in IOU's.
Dunfee, 163 W. Va. at 541, 258 S.E.2d at 118.
In the case at
hand, the interpretation of "annual salary increase"
urged by the plaintiffs could, in some instances, force counties
to pay deputies "in IOU's," instead of legal tender.See footnote 4 4 We
indicated in syllabus point 2 of Pristavec v. Westfield Ins. Co.,
184 W. Va. 331, 400 S.E.2d 575 (1990), in part, that "[i]t
is . . . the duty of a court to disregard a construction, though
apparently warranted by the literal sense of the words in a
statute, when such construction would lead to injustice and
absurdity." Quoting syl. pt. 2, Click v. Click, 98 W. Va.
419, 127 S.E. 194 (1925). We do not believe the legislature
intended "annual salary
increase" to have the fiscally unsound
interpretation urged by the plaintiffs. We must, therefore,
reject the interpretation of "annual salary increase"
urged by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, we answer the second
question no.
C.
The third
question presented states: "Or, is the annual salary
increase to be paid as an annual increment (bonus) which is not
added to the deputy's base pay?" The plaintiffs ask this
Court not to interpret "annual salary increase" to mean
a bonus. Such an interpretation, however, is warranted in light
of our determination that the legislature did not intend for
"annual salary increase" to a mean progressive increase
to the base compensation paid deputies. We discern an overriding
policy concern on the part of the legislature that every deputy
sheriff receive a modest salary "bonus" each year, but
not to the point of impairing the fiscal stability of any county.
"In ascertaining legislative intent, effect must be given to
. . . the statute . . . so as to accomplish the general purpose
of the legislation." Syl. pt. 2, Smith v. State Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner. See West Virginia Human Rights Com'n
v. Garretson, 196 W. Va. 118, 123, 468 S.E.2d 733, 738 (W.
Va. 1996) ("A statute is interpreted on the plain meaning of
its provision in the statutory context, informed when necessary
by the policy that the statute was designed to serve.").
Therefore, "annual salary increase" must be interpreted
to mean a bonus type salary increase for deputy sheriffs, which
does not attach as an increase in base pay. Accordingly, we
answer the third question yes.
D.
The fourth
question submitted provides: "Upon reaching 16 years of
service, and for employment in years 17 and thereafter, is the
deputy sheriff entitled to the incremental salary increase
pursuant to W. Va. Code § 7-14-17c annually for each year of
service thereafter?" Both parties contend that the statute
requires an annual salary increase for each year after the
sixteenth year of employment. The circuit court agreed with such
an interpretation. The pertinent language in W. Va. Code,
7-14-17c provides: "[E]very deputy sheriff with one year or
more of service shall receive an annual salary increase in the
sum of five dollars per month for each year of service up to a
maximum of sixteen years of service." This language does not
expressly provide for annual salary increases after the sixteenth
year. Both
parties ask this Court to interpret the statute as implicitly
allowing the annual salary increase to continue after the
sixteenth year of employment. We discern no justiciable issue
here because both parties urge, initially, the same
interpretation. In order for this Court to render an answer to a
certified question "there must be an actual, existing
controversy." Hustead on Behalf of Adkins v. Ashland Oil,
Inc., 197 W. Va. 55, 61, 475 S.E.2d 55, 61 (1996) (citations
omitted). We, therefore, decline to answer the question as
framed.
Although both
parties contend that W. Va. Code, 7-14-17c authorizes an annual
salary increase after the sixteenth year, the parties differ on
the meaning of "annual salary increase." The plaintiffs
argue that after the sixteenth year the maximum earned increase
should be part of the base salary; whereas the
defendants contend that the maximum earned increase is to be paid
from year 17 forward as an annual bonus. In addressing this
latter issue, we will treat the parties as having stipulated that
W. Va. Code, 7-14-17c authorizes an annual salary increase after
the sixteenth year. Having done so, we find that the maximum
earned increase is to be paid from year 17 forward as an annual
bonus, and not as part of the base salary.See footnote 5 5 Our interpretation
here, of course, is consistent with the meaning previously given
"annual salary increase."See footnote 6 6
III.
CONCLUSION
After discussing
the certified questions from the Circuit Court of Monongalia
County, we respond as follows. We answer question 1 yes; question
2 no; question 3 yes; we decline to answer question 4; and
questions 5 and 6 are moot.
Having answered
the certified questions, we dismiss this case from the docket
of this Court and remand the case to the Circuit
Court of Monongalia County for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
Certified questions answered.
Footnote: 1 1 We point out that a per curiam opinion is not legal precedent. See Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W. Va. 197, 201 n.4, 423 S.E.2d 600, 604 n.4 (1992) ("Per curiam opinions ... are used to decide only the specific case before the Court; everything in a per curiam opinion beyond the syllabus point is merely obiter dicta.... Other courts, such as many of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals, have gone to non-published (not-to-be-cited) opinions to deal with similar cases. We do not have such a specific practice, but instead use published per curiam opinions. However, if rules of law or accepted ways of doing things are to be changed, then this Court will do so in a signed opinion, not a per curiam opinion.").
Footnote:
2 2 W.
Va. Code, 58-5-2 provides in relevant part:
Any question
arising upon the sufficiency of a summons or return of service,
upon a challenge of the sufficiency of a pleading or the venue of
the circuit court, upon the sufficiency
of a motion for summary judgment where such motion is denied, or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, upon the jurisdiction of the circuit court of a person or subject matter, or upon failure to join an indispensable party, in any case within the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court of appeals, may, in the discretion of the circuit court in which it arises, and shall, on the joint application of the parties to the suit, in beneficial interest, be certified by it to the supreme court of appeals for its decision, and further proceedings in the case stayed until such question shall have been decided and the decision thereof certified back.
Footnote:
3 3 We
were called upon to answer certified questions in Lawson v.
County Com'n of Mercer County, 199 W. Va. 77, 483 S.E.2d 77
(1996) (per curiam) concerning W. Va. Code, 7-14-17c. That case
was brought by active and retired county deputy sheriffs,
alleging that they were entitled to back pay because the county
commission incorrectly interpreted and administered the statute's
annual salary increase provision. We rejected the interpretation
of the statute urged by the plaintiffs in Lawson. Although we are
acknowledge Lawson has no precedent setting value on the case at
hand, the ultimate issues at stake in this proceeding are
identical to that of Lawson. The outcome, therefore, of the
instant case has been foreshadowed by Lawson.
Footnote: 4 4 The briefs of both parties point out that interpreting "annual salary increase" as a bonus would mean that a qualified deputy would receive a total payment of $12,000 over twenty years; however, using the progressive increase to base salary interpretation would cause a total payment of $91,200 over twenty years.
Footnote: 5 5 The defendants' brief correctly points out that the maximum bonus for a deputy sheriff who has been employed for sixteen years is $960. Under the qualification we have made to question 4, deputy sheriffs employed seventeen years or more would receive an annual bonus of $960 for each year employed after the sixteenth year.
Footnote: 6 6 In light of our determination that the salary increase is a bonus, and not part of the base salary, questions 5 and 6 are moot. See Yeager v. Farmers Mutual Ins. Co., 192 W. Va. 556, 561, 453 S.E.2d 390, 395 (1994).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.