A Victory for Equity

For centuries under the Anglo-American system of law, civil courts were divided into law courts and courts of equity.  There were many technical distinctions between the two, but essentially courts of equity could sometimes give relief on grounds of fairness or other “equitable” grounds when law courts – which more strictly applied the common law of the land and the laws of the King or legislature – could not.

Since 1960, when West Virginia adopted its own rules of civil procedure, the two courts have been merged (federal courts merged law and equity in 1938).  There is now one judge who sits to hear both legal and equitable claims.    

Almost sixty years after the merger, legal principles dominate reported opinions with very little mention of equity.  There are several reasons for this.  Legislation has been more technical and expansive and there are more and more laws every year.  With more laws out there, judges have less discretion.  Lawyers are also trained to find legal citations and authority for everything, and it is probably fair to say that many are uncomfortable relying on equitable principles which were historically criticized as varying from chancellor to chancellor (the chancellor was the name of the “judge” sitting in equity).  Whenever there is an applicable legal principle, generally courts have to look to that first before taking into account equitable considerations.

Today, equity is mentioned occasionally in the jury trial context (where your right to a jury trial may depend on whether your cause of action is legal or equitable) and a few other places.  But, for the most part, cases are decided on legal grounds even when the results seem inequitable.

That’s why it was refreshing to read the recent Supreme Court of Appeals opinion in Bowland v. Haushalter.  http://www.courtswv.gov/supreme-court/memo-decisions/fall2019/18-0762memo.pdf Essentially, Ms. Haushalter couldn’t get enough water to her property, so she approached her neighbors, the Bowlands, for permission to run a water line across their property to serve her property.   She eventually dug the necessary trench across the Bowland property and connected her water.

The Bowlands sued, and claimed that Ms. Haushalter was trespassing, and Ms. Haushalter filed a counterclaim saying, essentially, that it would be unfair for her to have to remove the line because the Bowlands gave her permission.  Unfortunately for Ms. Haushalter, there was nothing in writing, and WV law generally requires that easements (which is what Ms. Haushalter needed from the Bowlands to cross their land) be in writing. 

But despite the legal requirement that easements be in writing, the court sided with Ms. Haushalter, finding that equity should allow her to keep the water line.  The court found that, even though their agreement was not in writing, the Bowlands knew what Ms. Haushalter was doing, they actually encouraged her to do it, and they advised the contractors digging the trench where it should be dug.

This seems like the right result in this case, despite the legal principles to the contrary.