The Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia has dismissed the appeal of Donna J. Armstead and Anthony Armstead against Mannington Home Center, Inc. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the case, which stems from a long-standing dispute involving a judgment against the Armsteads. This decision affects the Armsteads' ongoing legal battles with Mannington regarding the enforcement of a judgment entered in 2008.

The Armsteads, who are the petitioners in this case, have been involved in legal proceedings against Mannington Home Center since a judgment was entered against them in 2008 for $41,669.28. This judgment included post-judgment interest and costs. The Armsteads have faced various legal challenges since then, including bankruptcy filings and attempts to contest the validity of Mannington's judgment lien. Their latest appeal was filed in response to a December 23, 2025, order from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

The dispute began when Mannington sought to collect the judgment from the Armsteads. After several attempts to enforce the judgment, including a writ of execution obtained in 2017, the Armsteads filed for bankruptcy multiple times. In July 2019, they initiated a bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, where they challenged the validity of Mannington's judgment lien. The bankruptcy court ruled in March 2020 that Mannington's judgment lien was null and void, but this ruling was later amended.

Despite the bankruptcy proceedings, Mannington continued its efforts to enforce the judgment. In April 2021, the circuit court granted Mannington's motion to enforce its lien against the Armsteads' property, appointing a special commissioner to conduct a judicial sale. The Armsteads appealed this decision, but their appeal was complicated by their bankruptcy filings.

On December 23, 2025, the circuit court issued the order that the Armsteads appealed, denying their motion for summary judgment. The court found that the bankruptcy court's orders did not prevent Mannington from proceeding with the execution of its judgment. As a result, the court directed the special commissioner to continue with the judicial sale.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals, consisting of Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear, Judge Charles O. Lorensen, and Judge S. Ryan White, reviewed the appeal. The court determined that the December 23, 2025, order was not a final, appealable order. According to West Virginia law, an order denying a motion for summary judgment is generally considered interlocutory and not immediately appealable. The court noted that the order did not resolve the underlying case, which remained pending in the circuit court.

The court stated, "The December 23, 2025, order does not fall within a recognized exception permitting immediate appellate review. Because the order is interlocutory, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction under West Virginia Code § 51-11-4(d)(8)." This ruling emphasizes the principle that appellate courts can only review final judgments or orders.

The dismissal of the appeal means that the Armsteads must continue to navigate the ongoing proceedings in the lower court. This ruling does not prevent them from pursuing other legal avenues, but it does limit their options for immediate review of the circuit court's decision. The court's ruling also reinforces the importance of finality in legal proceedings, as it aims to prevent piecemeal litigation.

Moving forward, the Armsteads may still pursue their legal rights in the circuit court, but they will have to do so without the benefit of an appellate review of the December 23 order. Additionally, the Armsteads have a pending appeal related to the April 26, 2021, enforcement order, which remains in abeyance. This ongoing situation illustrates the complexities involved in legal disputes, particularly when bankruptcy and judgments intersect.

As of now, there are no indications that the Armsteads will appeal the dismissal of their latest appeal. However, they may continue to challenge Mannington's enforcement efforts in the lower courts. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the procedural hurdles that can arise in legal disputes, especially when multiple proceedings are involved.