W. Va. Code » §55-2-7. Actions on bonds of personal representatives and fiduciaries.
West Virginia Code

W. Va. Code § 55-2-7 (2026)

Actions on bonds of personal representatives and fiduciaries

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WV-LEGwvlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
ARTICLE 2. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS AND SUITS.

§55-2-7. Actions on bonds of personal representatives and fiduciaries.

The right of action upon the bond of an executor, administrator, guardian, curator or committee, or of a sheriff acting as such, shall be deemed to have first accrued as follows: Upon a bond of a guardian or curator of a ward, from the time of the ward's attaining the age of eighteen years, or from the termination of the guardian's or curator's office, whichever shall happen first; and upon the bond of any personal representative of a decedent or committee of an insane person, the right of action of a person obtaining execution against such representative or committee, or to whom payment or delivery of estate in the hands of such representative or committee shall be ordered by a court acting upon his account, shall be deemed to have first accrued from the return day of such execution, or from the time of the right to require payment or delivery upon such order, whichever shall happen first. And as to any suit against such fiduciary himself or his representative, which could have been maintained if he had given no bond, there shall be no other limitation than would exist if the preceding section were not passed. Where any such fiduciary, or any other fiduciary, has settled an account under the provisions of article four, chapter forty-four of this code, a suit to hold such fiduciary or his sureties liable for any balance stated in such account to be in his hands shall be brought within ten years after the account has been confirmed. The right to recover money paid under fraud or mistake shall be deemed to accrue, both at law and in equity, at the time such fraud or mistake is discovered, or by the exercise of due diligence ought to have been discovered.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Vorholt v. One Valley Bank, 498 S.E.2d 241 (W. Va. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vorholt v. One Valley Bank, 498 S.E.2d 241 (W. Va. 1998). · cites it 16× “The appellant maintains that, if any statute of limitations is applicable, it is the ten-year statute of limitations provided for in W.Va. Code, 55-2-7. [4] Again, we disagree.”
Rodgers v. Rodgers, 399 S.E.2d 664 (W. Va. 1990). · cites it 2× “We note that the rights of beneficiaries or heirs-at-law with regard to claims against a personal representative or other fiduciary who has settled an account are set out in W.Va.Code, 55-2-7 (1972). 7 This statute provides that “a suit to hold such fiduciary or his sureties…”
Whitlow v. Bd. of Educ. of Kanawha Cty., 438 S.E.2d 15 (W. Va. 1993). “Code, 29-12A-6(b), in regard to medical malpractice claims. We need not address the constitutionality of that provision at this time.”
City of Bluefield ex rel. Sanitary Bd. of Bluefield v. Autotrol Corp., 723 F. Supp. 362 (S.D. W. Va. 1989). · cites it 2× “W.Va.Code § 55-2-7. The Court finds that the ten year statute of limitations governs the breach of contract claims of Count I.”
Justin Scott Peck v. Gregory Scolapio, No. 19-0165 (W. Va. May 26, 2020). · cites it 5× “]” W. Va. Code § 55-2-7 , in relevant part. Importantly, petitioner makes no effort to address any aspect of the statute’s clear and unambiguous language or to explain how it applies to his claims against respondent such that they were timely filed within the statutory period.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.