laches doctrine in West Virginia

2025Here, the family court provided a thorough analysis and determined that (1) Husband presented no evidence to suggest that relevant evidence was 6 The doctrine of laches is “an equity doctrine to the effect that unreasonable delay will bar a claim if the delay is a prejudice to the defendant.” Kinsinger v. Pethel, 234 W.

2024Specifically, Father argues that: (1) a simple reading of West Virginia Code § 48-24-104(a) makes it clear that it applies when the respondent is the father, but here, Father was the petitioner in the family court proceedings; and (2) Mother missed her opportunity to file for support and should have been barred from it due to the doctrine of laches.8 We disagree and conclude that Father’s 8 The doctrine of laches is “an equity doctrine to the effect that unreasonable delay will bar a claim if the delay is a prejudice to the defendant.” Kinsinger v. Pethel, 234 W.

2025The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia’s (“SCAWV”) customary brief formulation of the doctrine of laches was stated in Province v. Province, 196 W.

1998This Court's customary brief formulation of the doctrine of laches was stated in Province v. Province, 196 W.Va. 473, 483 , 473 S.E.2d 894, 904 (1996): "The elements of laches consist of (1) unreasonable delay and (2) prejudice." We have also stated: Laches is an equitable defense, and its application depends upon the particular facts of each case.

1996In Syllabus Point 4 of Laurie v. Thomas, 170 W.Va. 276 , 294 S.E.2d 78 (1982), we indicated that “ ‘[t]he general rule in equity is that mere lapse of time, unaccompanied by circumstances which create a presumption that the right has been abandoned, does not constitute laches.’ Syllabus Point 4, Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corporation, 141 W.Va. 627 , 92 S.E.2d 891 (1956).” Time, standing alone, is insufficient to trigger the doctrine of laches.

1996In Syllabus Point 4 of Laurie v. Thomas, 170 W.Va. 276 , 294 S.E.2d 78 (1982), we indicated that “ ‘[t]he general rule in equity is that mere lapse of time, unaccompanied by circumstances which create a presumption that the right has been abandoned, does not constitute laches.’ Syllabus Point 4, Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corporation, 141 W.Va. 627 , 92 S.E.2d 891 (1956).” Time, standing alone, is insufficient to trigger the doctrine of laches.

1999Waller Chemicals, Inc. v. McNutt, 152 W.Va. 186 , 160 S.E.2d 170 (1968) that the doctrine of laches applies to a mandamus action such as that filed by the appellant, and that an unreasonable delay in bringing the action may bar relief: The extraordinary remedy of mandamus, though on the law side of the court, is limited as to time by the equitable doctrine of laches; and the burden of showing suffi-eient. excuse for what appears from the record to be an unreasonable delay in the assertion of a clear legal right through the remedy of mandamus rests upon the person asserting such right.

1999Waller Chemicals, Inc. v. McNutt, 152 W.Va. 186 , 160 S.E.2d 170 (1968) that the doctrine of laches applies to a mandamus action such as that filed by the appellant, and that an unreasonable delay in bringing the action may bar relief: The extraordinary remedy of mandamus, though on the law side of the court, is limited as to time by the equitable doctrine of laches; and the burden of showing suffi-eient. excuse for what appears from the record to be an unreasonable delay in the assertion of a clear legal right through the remedy of mandamus rests upon the person asserting such right.

2024Earlier this term we discussed the doctrine of laches: “[L]aches is an equitable doctrine based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.” Banker v. Banker, 196 W.

2024Va. 535, 547 , 474 S.E.2d 465, 477 (1996).

2020Without any further explanation or analysis, petitioner states simply that, “[p]ursuant to the doctrine of laches, delay in 6 and of itself does not act as a bar to equitable relief.” Our cases have made clear that “[a]lthough we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are . . . mentioned only in passing but are not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.” State v. LaRock, 196 W.

2020Without any further explanation or analysis, petitioner states simply that, “[p]ursuant to the doctrine of laches, delay in 6 and of itself does not act as a bar to equitable relief.” Our cases have made clear that “[a]lthough we liberally construe briefs in determining issues presented for review, issues which are . . . mentioned only in passing but are not supported with pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.” State v. LaRock, 196 W.

2020See Syl., Carter v. Price, 85 W.

2016Also, in Syllabus Point 2 of Webb, we held that in cases where a licensing board is endeavoring to protect the public by bringing disciplinary charges, the doctrine of laches “should be applied narrowly and conservatively and in such a fashion as to not unfairly impair the [b]oard’s duty[.]” 203 W.Va. at 235 , 506 S.E.2d at 831.

2014The circuit court stated, in part, This Court interprets the family court’s findings as an application of the laches doctrine by which “a delay in the assertion of a known right works to the disadvantage of another, or such delay as will warrant the presumption that the party has waived his right.” Grose v. Grose, 222 W.Va. 722, 728 [ 671 S.E.2d 727 ] (2008) (internal citations omitted).

2014The circuit court stated, in part, This Court interprets the family court’s findings as an application of the laches doctrine by which “a delay in the assertion of a known right works to the disadvantage of another, or such delay as will warrant the presumption that the party has waived his right.” Grose v. Grose, 222 W.Va. 722, 728 [ 671 S.E.2d 727 ] (2008) (internal citations omitted).

1996See also Holmberg v. Amnbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582, 584-85 , 90 L.Ed. 743, 747 (1946) (“[F]raudulent conduct on the part of the defendant may have prevented the plaintiff from being diligent and may make it unfair to bar appeal to equity because of mere lapse of time.”); Salsbury v. Ware, 183 Ill. 505 , 56 N.E. 149 (1899) (Laches does not apply when the plaintiff failed to act on suspicions that an action may lie after an explanation was given which “lulled to sleep” his suspicions); Hansel v. Hansel, 300 Pa.Super. 548 , 446 A.2d 1294, 1299 (1982) (“Concealment or deceit toUs the

1996See also Holmberg v. Amnbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582, 584-85 , 90 L.Ed. 743, 747 (1946) (“[F]raudulent conduct on the part of the defendant may have prevented the plaintiff from being diligent and may make it unfair to bar appeal to equity because of mere lapse of time.”); Salsbury v. Ware, 183 Ill. 505 , 56 N.E. 149 (1899) (Laches does not apply when the plaintiff failed to act on suspicions that an action may lie after an explanation was given which “lulled to sleep” his suspicions); Hansel v. Hansel, 300 Pa.Super. 548 , 446 A.2d 1294, 1299 (1982) (“Concealment or deceit toUs the

1996See also Holmberg v. Amnbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582, 584-85 , 90 L.Ed. 743, 747 (1946) (“[F]raudulent conduct on the part of the defendant may have prevented the plaintiff from being diligent and may make it unfair to bar appeal to equity because of mere lapse of time.”); Salsbury v. Ware, 183 Ill. 505 , 56 N.E. 149 (1899) (Laches does not apply when the plaintiff failed to act on suspicions that an action may lie after an explanation was given which “lulled to sleep” his suspicions); Hansel v. Hansel, 300 Pa.Super. 548 , 446 A.2d 1294, 1299 (1982) (“Concealment or deceit toUs the

1996See also Holmberg v. Amnbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 396 , 66 S.Ct. 582, 584-85 , 90 L.Ed. 743, 747 (1946) (“[F]raudulent conduct on the part of the defendant may have prevented the plaintiff from being diligent and may make it unfair to bar appeal to equity because of mere lapse of time.”); Salsbury v. Ware, 183 Ill. 505 , 56 N.E. 149 (1899) (Laches does not apply when the plaintiff failed to act on suspicions that an action may lie after an explanation was given which “lulled to sleep” his suspicions); Hansel v. Hansel, 300 Pa.Super. 548 , 446 A.2d 1294, 1299 (1982) (“Concealment or deceit toUs the

1996See Bee v. Seaman, 36 W.Va. 381 , 15 S.E. 173 (1892); and State ex rel.

1996See Bee v. Seaman, 36 W.Va. 381 , 15 S.E. 173 (1892); and State ex rel.

1995The right of reimbursement support on behalf of the custodian of the child is subject to the doctrine of laches. 179 W.Va. at 655 , 371 S.E.2d at 583 , Syl.Pt. 2.

1995See Syl.Pt. 2, Kathy L.B., 179 W.Va. at 655 , 371 S.E.2d at 583 .

1995See 156 W.Va. at 77 , 191 S.E.2d at 161 , Syl.Pt. 4.

1995See 156 W.Va. at 77 , 191 S.E.2d at 161 , Syl.Pt. 4.

1995The right of reimbursement support on behalf of the custodian of the child is subject to the doctrine of laches. 179 W.Va. at 655 , 371 S.E.2d at 583 , Syl.Pt. 2.

1995See Syl.Pt. 2, Kathy L.B., 179 W.Va. at 655 , 371 S.E.2d at 583 .

1994The writ of mandamus will be refused when the petitioner has unreasonably delayed his application for such writ and by reason of the delay the rights of the defendant or innocent third parties will be prejudiced by the issuance of the writ.” See also White v. Manchin, 173 W.Va. 526, 535 , 318 S.E.2d 470, 479 (1984); State ex rel.

1994The writ of mandamus will be refused when the petitioner has unreasonably delayed his application for such writ and by reason of the delay the rights of the defendant or innocent third parties will be prejudiced by the issuance of the writ.” See also White v. Manchin, 173 W.Va. 526, 535 , 318 S.E.2d 470, 479 (1984); State ex rel.

1993See, e.g., Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary Dist., 48 Ill.2d 309 , 269 N.E.2d 457 (1971); Drenning v. Bd. of Comm'rs of City of Topeka, 148 Kan. 366 , 81 P.2d 720 (1938); Zeitler v. Town of Hinsdale, 5 Mass.App. 778 , 359 N.E.2d 1315 (1977); New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Levitt, 62 A.D.2d 1074 , 404 N.Y.S.2d 55 (1978); Ciletti v. City of Washington, 392 Pa. 204 , 140 A.2d 98 (1958).

1993See, e.g., Solomon v. North Shore Sanitary Dist., 48 Ill.2d 309 , 269 N.E.2d 457 (1971); Drenning v. Bd. of Comm'rs of City of Topeka, 148 Kan. 366 , 81 P.2d 720 (1938); Zeitler v. Town of Hinsdale, 5 Mass.App. 778 , 359 N.E.2d 1315 (1977); New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Levitt, 62 A.D.2d 1074 , 404 N.Y.S.2d 55 (1978); Ciletti v. City of Washington, 392 Pa. 204 , 140 A.2d 98 (1958).