The chambers of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
CHARLESTON – The state Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a woman’s lawsuit against a Lewisburg attorney she says “destroyed” her marriage by having an affair with her former husband.
While the justices agreed Mary Wenz’ case against Rachel Hanna and her law office should be dismissed, their June 24 memorandum decision disagreed with the lower courts’ reasons for the dismissal.
Hanna
According to the complaint, Hanna had represented Wenz as recently as 2015 in a potential lawsuit. At some point in time, Wenz says Hanna began having an affair with Wenz’s then-husband. Wenz also says there was a series of contentious interactions between the three of them that allegedly continued for a significant amount of time.
Wenz and her husband obtained a divorce in Virginia, and Wenz then sued Hanna and her law office in 2018 in Greenbrier Circuit Court. The case was refiled in 2019., and an amended complaint was filed in 2022 accusing Hanna of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, civil conspiracy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
“More specifically, the amended complaint alleges that on or around June 12, 2015, Ms. Wenz entered an attorney-client relationship with Ms. Hanna that concerned a potential product liability case involving implant manufacturer Medtronic,” an Intermediate Court of Appeals filing about the case states. “Further, the amended complaint alleges that Ms. Hanna ‘began a sexual relationship’ with Ms. Wenz’s then-husband, Dennis O’Dell, that said relationship ‘that ultimately destroyed’ Ms. Wenz’s marriage, ruined her financially and caused her emotional distress.
“It was also alleged that when Ms. Wenz first confronted Ms. Hanna about the inappropriate relationship with Mr. O’Dell on April 14, 2016, that Ms. Hanna continuously denied the relationship. In fact, Ms. Wenz averred that it was not until July 7, 2016, that Ms. Hanna finally admitted to having an intimate relationship with Ms. Wenz’s husband.”
Hanna moved to dismiss the complaint on a variety of grounds, and the circuit court judge dismissed it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the nature of the claims and the Virginia divorce, concluding the claims were barred by the relevant statute of limitations.
Wenz appealed to the ICA, which affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the action on a different basis, saying the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Wenz’s claims were substantively claims for alienation of affection, which are not recognized in West Virginia. The ICA declined to address the circuit court’s statute of limitations ruling.
Wenz then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the ICA erred by characterizing her causes of action as disguised alienation of affection claims and by treating that characterization as a jurisdictional defect. She also faulted the ICA for refusing to address the lower court’s statute of limitations analysis.
In its ruling this week, the Supreme Court ruled the case fails to state any viable claim under West Virginia law even though the circuit court did have subject matter jurisdiction.
“For different reasons, both lower courts concluded that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this matter,” the justices wrote. “However, we fundamentally disagree that either lower court identified a subject matter jurisdiction concern.”
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number 24-420 (Intermediate Court of Appeals case number 23-ICA-201, Greenbrier Circuit Court case number 19-C-162)
