USA Foreclosure Wiki

Drake v. West Virginia Self-Storage, Inc. (1998)

3 min read

Drake v. West Virginia Self-Storage, Inc. (1998)

Citation: 203 W. Va. 497, 509 S.E.2d 21 (per curiam) · Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, No. 25064 · Decided: October 16, 1998; Starcher, J., concurring (filed November 9, 1998)

Source note (2026-10-18):

Opinion text retrieved 2026-10-17 from the Caselaw Access Project’s static copy of the West Virginia Reports (static.case.law, W. Va. volume 203), an unofficial host.

Facts

Donna Drake rented a storage unit at USD 40 a month. The lease let the operator, on default, seize the contents and keep or sell them, publicly or privately, “without notice,” and keep any excess not claimed within 10 days. Drake missed the December 1996 and January 1997 payments. The operator sent a certified-mail notice, which she received, that the property would be sold unless she paid by February 7, 1997. She did not respond; the contents were sold (in effect exchanged for a trailer valued at about USD 150). In May 1997 she tendered USD 180 and sued for the property or its value (she claimed USD 10,000). The circuit court granted the operator summary judgment.

Holding

Affirmed. The default clause was not facially unconscionable. Under W. Va. Code 38-11-14 a lienor “may satisfy such lien in any manner agreed upon between the owner and the lienor,” so the statutory notice-and-suit procedure applies only absent agreement; the operator followed the lease and in fact gave notice. The statute sets no standard for the price obtained, and a harsh result does not displace the agreed procedure.

Reasoning

  • The storage operator held the § 38-11-3 lien for storage charges and a contractual lien.
  • The UCC warehouse-lien procedure (W. Va. Code 46-7-210) did not govern this kind of storage business.
  • By analogy to Fayette County National Bank v. Lilly (1997), where statutory procedures are followed, the price alone does not invalidate the sale.
  • The majority noted its conclusion “may have been different if notice, in fact, had not been given.” Justice Starcher, concurring, stressed that the ruling does not decide whether a sale without any good-faith attempt at notice is actionable.

Practical impact

  • Buyers at lien sales under article 11 of chapter 38: the lien may be enforced by any method the owner agreed to, so a private or self-help sale can be valid when the contract provides for it; the default statutory route (notice, then suit within 30 days) applies only without such an agreement (W. Va. Code § 38-11-14).
  • Self-storage tenancies entered into or renewed after July 1, 2019 are now governed by the Self-Service Storage Lien Act, which requires notice, a 14-day payment demand and advertisement before a sale (W. Va. Code § 38-14-5, W. Va. Code § 38-14-9), so Drake’s self-storage facts would be decided under that act today.
  • Owners who receive notice and do nothing have little recourse.

Good-law status

Marked distinguished for self-storage: for rental agreements entered into, extended or renewed after July 1, 2019, article 14 of chapter 38 supplies a specific procedure (W. Va. Code § 38-14-9; savings clause for earlier agreements, W. Va. Code § 38-14-8). Its reading of the “any manner agreed upon” clause of § 38-11-14, whose text is unchanged in the current code, is not known to have been disturbed (no later CAP decision through 2017 citing it on that point was located).

Applies in →

west-virginia · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · marina-and-storage-lien-sales-of-vessels

Graph View

Backlinks