CHARLESTON – The West Virginia Supreme Court sided with the Unsafe Buildings Commission of Huntington regarding the demolition of a Huntington home.
Gregory Martin appealed the order from Cabell Circuit Court on Aug. 6, 2018, that denied him injunctive relief.
On appeal, Martin argued that the Circuit Court erred in denying him injunctive relief and allowed the commission to proceed with the process of demolishing his residence.
“Based on the foregoing, we find that petitioner failed to demonstrate that his house should be removed from the demolition list or that he will be irreparably harmed by the demolition of his house,” the Supreme Court wrote in the Jan. 17 memorandum decision. “Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the Circuit Court’s decision to deny petitioner injunctive relief.”
A fire broke out at a home on Madison Avenue in Huntington in 2013, and the owner of the home, Joe Martin, died as a result of the fire.
The property passed to his estate later that year and Joe Martin’s oldest son, Timothy Martin, was named the personal representative of the estate.
The city of Huntington Building Inspector conducted an inspection of the house in October 2014 and issued a notice of violation, stating that the structure was unsafe for human occupancy due to the fire damage that had never been remediated.
The notice provided that the owners had 30 days from the date the letter was postmarked to correct the damage. The notice also provided that the house would be submitted to the commission for consideration and that if no action was taken to remediate the house, it would be placed on the demolition list.
The following month, the commission respondent issued a complaint setting an administrative hearing date of Jan. 8, 2015, to address the condition of the house.
The complaint alleged building, plumbing and electrical code violations, as well as trash, debris and other unsanitary conditions. The complaint was served upon Timothy Martin by certified mail on Nov. 29, 2014.
One day prior to the hearing, Timothy Martin called the respondent and advised that he would be unable to attend the hearing.
During the hearing, the state of the house was discussed, and, ultimately, the commission issued an order of demolition, finding that the house was “unsafe, dangerous or detrimental to the public welfare and should be demolished,” the ruling states.
The house remained on the demolition list for some time, and the house continued to deteriorate. Further, the house attracted illegal activity, including an accidental overdose that occurred in the house around July 2017, and an intentional fire that was set in or around the house in September 2017.
The city continued with the demolition process by having the house tested and abated for asbestos, which was completed around February 2018 and, in April 2018, Gregory Martin filed a complaint in the Circuit Court seeking an injunction.
Gregory Martin claimed that he intended to rehabilitate the house when probate was completed and the estate was closed. He asserted that Timothy Martin had been dilatory in his duties as the public representative of the estate, effectively leaving Gregory Martin’s hands tied in regard to rehabilitating the house.
Gregory Martin further claimed that he would suffer irreparable harm if the house were demolished and that his “success on the merits is high.”
A hearing was held in July 2018 and Gregory Martin requested 90 days to begin rehabilitating the house.
The court ruled in August 2018 that the dwelling was unsafe for its use as a dwelling, and that, due to the severe dilapidation of the house, the land would be more valuable without the structure.
The court found that the petitioner was unable to provide any estimates regarding the repairs of the house and suggested that he intended to undertake the “vast majority” of the work himself.
“In fact, the Circuit Court noted that the value of the land was worth more than the house itself,” the court wrote. “Additionally, contrary to petitioner’s argument, respondent could experience harm if not permitted to demolish the house. Respondent is responsible for protecting the interests of the residents of Huntington.”
Permitting the structure to remain decreases the property values of the other houses, as well as allows criminal activity to continue, the court wrote.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 18-0778