CHARLESTON — After putting to brakes on last year, the House Judiciary Committee gave a thumbs up Friday to a Senate proposal for a new intermediate court of appeals.

Senate Bill 275, creating an intermediate court of appeals between the circuit courts and the state Supreme Court, was recommended for passage by the committee in a 15-10 vote Friday evening.

Changes made by the House Judiciary Committee would push out implementation of the court to Jan. 1, 2023, with judges to the court being elected in May 2022 and taking office Jan. 1, 2023.

The court, as proposed by the Senate, would divide the state into northern and southern districts and hear appeals of circuit court civil cases, guardianships and conservatorships, family court cases and decisions made by administrative law judges, the Health Care Authority and Workers’ Compensation Board of Review.

Some of the House Judiciary Committee amendments to the bill would allow for the intermediate court to hear criminal appeals and require two physical locations for the courts. The northern district would be headquartered in Clarksburg and the southern district would be headquartered in Beckley, though both courts would be able to travel throughout the districts.

Decisions by the intermediate court are appealable to the state Supreme Court, which would return to hearing cases on a discretionary basis. Since 2011, the Supreme Court has operated under a rule that all appeals are a matter of right and has issued written decisions in all appeals. The goal of the new intermediate court is to take the workload off of circuit courts and the Supreme Court.

Sarah Canterbury, a counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee who presented SB 275 to the House Judiciary Committee Friday, said she has received several questions about whether the bill creates an extra appeal step for certain cases.

“The answer to that is for that vast majority of cases routed to the intermediate court, there is no potential for an extra appeal,” Canterbury said. “For most cases, there’s already an intermediate appellate process — not a court, but a process — before a case can reach the Supreme Court of Appeals in our current system.”

The new court would not hear appeals from circuit courts of criminal cases, juvenile proceedings, abuse and neglect cases, mental hygiene orders, or Public Service Commission decisions, with those appeals going directly to the state Supreme Court.

The start-up costs of the new court, according to a fiscal note submitted by the West Virginia Supreme Court, would be $8.5 million, with the first full-year implementation of the court costing $7.2 million annually after that. Another $2.6 million in savings would occur from transferring duties of the Worker’s Compensation Office of Judges to the Worker’s Compensation Board of Review.

According to Brian Casto, counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, said a constitutional amendment adopted 46 years ago allows for the creation of an intermediate court of appeals.

“An intermediate court only became a possibility with the passage of the Judicial Reorganization Amendment in 1974,” Casto said. “In that amendment, it added a provision that has not yet been acted on to allow the state to create at such time as it deemed necessary or expedient an intermediate appellate court.”

According to case load statics from the Supreme Court, 23% of appeals in 2019 were civil, 24% were criminal appeals, 33% were domestic cases, and 20% were administrative appeals. In 2019, the Supreme Court issued 61 signed opinions and 261 memorandum decisions. In total, the Supreme Court received 1,161 new filings and disposed of 962 cases for an 83% clearance rate.

Del. Chad Lovejoy, D-Cabell, said the intermediate court wasn’t needed due to the decreased caseload of the Supreme Court over the last decade and the cost of the court.

“We are changing the court system in ways that are not prudent … we’re doing something we don’t need to do,” Lovejoy said. “If you think this is going to be less than $10 million, I submit you’re not adding up all the numbers.”

Del. Terry Waxman, R-Harrison, said the state needs to predictable legal climate in order to foster job growth and new business investment in West Virginia. She believes an intermediate court will provide that predictability.

“Until we have the foundation of a thriving, growing, sustainable, diversified economy, we’re not ever going to have all the money to deal with all the things that are needed in our state,” Waxman said. “The foundation of … that economy is having a legal system that viewed as fair and predictable. That’s what makes us a good place to do business.”

Del. Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio, said that none of the testimony of the last two days regarding the intermediate court has stated that the court will help one business come to West Virginia.

“We’ve been here all day and for multiple hours and we didn’t hear one iota of evidence presented or testimony presented that this was somehow going to change our economy,” Fluharty said. “If you think this is only going to be $10 million, than I have some ocean-front property to sell you in Ohio County.”

Del. Tom Bibby, R-Berkeley, said an intermediate court will guarantee that appeals get a thorough review

“If you want to get people to come into this state, you’re going to have to have some type of a predictable outcome. That’s what we don’t have in this state right now,” Bibby said. “One thing this intermediate court is going to do is going to give us predictability … that, to me, means a lot. An intermediate court is well overdue.”

The bill has a second committee reference to the House Finance Committee, though there would be no impact to the fiscal year 2021 budget. An effort to dispense with the finance committee reference didn’t come to fruition.