Ward v. Ward

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 2021 · Property

783 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 2016)

Updated July 23, 2026

Propertyunlawful detainerunjust enrichmentimprovements to landmistaken belief of ownershiplienejectmentconsent and acquiescence

Facts

Judith Ward owned the parcel at issue, and in 1999 she allowed her son Gary Ward and his wife Susan Ward to build a log cabin on part of that property. Gary and Susan paid $50,000 for the log cabin kit, allegedly incurred additional expenses for maintenance and taxes, and lived there with Judith's knowledge and consent for about fifteen years. After Gary died in 2014, Judith served a notice to quit and filed an unlawful detainer action because Susan had no recorded ownership interest in the land. The parcel was never subdivided and there was no written agreement transferring ownership to Susan.

Issue

When a landowner lawfully ejects an occupant who built a home on the owner's land with the owner's knowledge and acquiescence, must the landowner compensate the occupant for the value of that improvement to avoid unjust enrichment? If so, may recovery of possession be conditioned on payment, and was the circuit court's $50,000 valuation adequately supported on the pleadings?

Rule

A landowner may recover possession through unlawful detainer from an occupant with no ownership interest in the property. But an evicted claimant who made permanent improvements may recover their value if either the claimant was a bona fide purchaser when the improvements were made or the circumstances make it fraudulent to let the owner take the improvements without compensation; where the claimant improved the property under a mistaken belief of ownership and the owner knew of and acquiesced in the improvements, the owner must compensate the claimant to avoid unjust enrichment. The improver is entitled to a lien on the property until compensated, and if the record is insufficient to determine value, the case should be remanded for further factual development.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Morgantown, Elaine Mercer owns a five-acre parcel. She tells her nephew, Nolan Price, that the back acre is 'basically yours,' watches him build a small permanent cottage there with his own money, and lets him live there for twelve years; after a family dispute, she brings unlawful detainer, and Nolan has no deed.

What is the most likely result?

Explanation. The majority rule is that the owner may recover possession from an occupant with no ownership interest, but the owner cannot retain a substantial improvement without compensation when the improver acted under a mistaken belief of ownership and the owner knew of and acquiesced in the construction. In that situation, compensation is required to avoid unjust enrichment, and the improver has a lien until paid.