## Facts

- A will gave Emily Keesecker a life estate in certain real and personal property; Ward W. Keesecker II held the remainder interest.
- Emily became comatose after an automobile accident; court-appointed fiduciaries managed her affairs during incapacity.
- Arch Steiner served as committee/personal representative from about 1981–1986; Walter M. Bird served from 1986–1993.
- The principal asset was “Highwood House,” a large multi-story residence in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, and its contents (allegedly including antiques).
- Ward alleged the fiduciaries negligently failed to maintain and secure the house and contents, causing severe deterioration and destruction that impaired his remainder interest.
- The house was rented from roughly June 1986 to June 1990, after which it was boarded up and locked; the homeowner’s insurer canceled coverage effective January 1990.
- The property suffered multiple burglaries during Bird’s tenure and two major fires: one in December 1991 and another in January 1993, the latter nearly destroying the house.
- In November 1990, a Commissioner of Accounts advised Bird that disbursements for utilities, maintenance, and repairs would no longer be approved and suggested selling or abandoning the property if valueless.
- In December 1991, Bird informed Ward of a prospective $78,000 buyer and sought Ward’s approval; in 1992 Bird sued to force a sale, and Ward asserted counterclaims based on waste.
- Emily died in May 1993.

## Issues

1. Whether Ward’s waste-based claims against Steiner were barred by a two-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether the circuit court’s summary judgment order dismissing Bird as “not a proper party” was adequate for appellate review.
3. Whether the circuit court misapplied West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a) (real party in interest) in dismissing Ward’s claims against Bird.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Steiner, holding Ward’s claims were time-barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
- The court reversed summary judgment for Bird because the dismissal order lacked stated factual and legal grounds sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.
- The court held the circuit court incorrectly applied Rule 17(a) in treating Bird as an improper defendant based on a real-party-in-interest analysis.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings as to Bird.

## Legal Principles

- A two-year statute of limitations applies to waste/negligence-type claims; accrual turns on when the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the injury and the alleged actor’s role.
- A summary judgment order must identify the court’s factual and legal analysis; a conclusory ruling (e.g., “not a proper party”) is insufficient.
- Rule 17(a) addresses who must prosecute an action; it does not justify dismissing an alleged wrongdoer solely by labeling the defendant “not a proper party” where the plaintiff asserts a cognizable interest and the defendant’s conduct is the basis of liability.
- A remainderman may assert claims for injury to the remainder interest caused by acts or omissions in the management of property subject to a life estate; such claims are not rejected at the pleading/party stage solely because the alleged wrongdoer acted as a fiduciary.

## Conclusion

The court upheld dismissal of the claims against Steiner as untimely, but required renewed proceedings against Bird because the circuit court failed to explain its summary judgment rationale and wrongly invoked Rule 17(a) to treat Bird as an improper defendant despite allegations that his management damaged the remainder interest.


Keesecker v. Bird, 200 W. Va. 667, 490 S.E.2d 754 (W. Va. 1997)