Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Spectra-4 LLP and Spectet Limited Partnership, LLC, individually owned and leased neighboring commercial buildings. Uniwest Commercial Realty provided management services for the commercial buildings. As between Uniwest and Spectra-4, and between Uniwest and Spectet, two separate implied-in-fact contracts existed. The implied-in-fact contracts encompassed specific portions of previously expired express contract executed by a different set of parties. After Plaintiffs terminated Uniwest’s management services for both commercial buildings Uniwest withdrew premature termination fees and copying charges from Plaintiffs’ operating accounts. Plaintiffs filed warrants in debt against Uniwest alleging conversion. Plaintiffs later amended the complaints to include breach of contract claims. The district court awarded judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The circuit court reversed and entered judgment in favor of Uniwest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in concluding that the implied-in-fact contracts permitted Uniwest’s withdrawal of premature termination fees from Plaintiffs’ operating accounts because the implied-in-fact contracts did not include terms and conditions permitting Uniwest to withdraw premature termination fees or copying charges from the operating accounts. View "Spectra-4, LLP v. Uniwest Commercial Realty" on Justia Law

In 2005, Donald Devine and his wife Nancy Devine acquired ownership of Rock Hall, a 200-year-old house. In 2007, Charles Buki and Kimberly Marsho signed a contract agreeing to purchase Rock Hall. Later that year, Buki and Marsho (together, Plaintiffs) brought suit against Donald and Nancy (together Defendants), alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced them to enter into the real estate contract and to close on Rock Hall by misrepresenting and concealing the true condition of the house. The trial court concluded that Nancy had committed no wrong but nonetheless granted rescission of the real estate contract against both Donald and Nancy, concluding that Nancy should be “responsible jointly and severally with her husband for the payment of the purchase price” of Rock Hall. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Nancy, the trial court had no basis for awarding any remedy, including rescission, against Nancy. View "Devine v. Buki" on Justia Law

In 2005, Donald Devine and his wife Nancy Devine acquired ownership of Rock Hall, a 200-year-old house. In 2007, Charles Buki and Kimberly Marsho signed a contract agreeing to purchase Rock Hall. Later that year, Buki and Marsho (together, Plaintiffs) brought suit against Donald and Nancy (together Defendants), alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced them to enter into the real estate contract and to close on Rock Hall by misrepresenting and concealing the true condition of the house. The trial court concluded that Plaintiffs were entitled to rescission of the contract where David, but not Nancy, committed fraud. The court awarded consequential damages and attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court (1) did not err in granting rescission of the real estate contract based on Donald’s fraudulent concealment of the true state of the house and did not err in awarding attorney’s fees; (2) did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award punitive damages; and (3) erred in awarding consequential damages and prejudgment interest. View "Devine v. Buki" on Justia Law

Zachary Gage Duncan sustained a serious injury while driving his 2008 Hyundai Tiburon when he struck a tree. The side airbag did not deploy. Plaintiffs, individual and as Duncan’s guardians and conservators, filed suit against Hyundai, claiming breach of implied warranty of merchantability. During trial, Plaintiffs’ designated expert witness Geoffrey Mahon testified that the location of the side airbag sensor rendered the Tiburon unreasonably dangerous. Hyundai appealed from the judgment of the trial court, arguing that there was an insufficient foundation for the expert witness’s opinion. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed, holding (1) Mahon’s opinion was premised upon his unfounded assumption that the side airbag would have deployed if the sensor had been located in a different area; and (2) because Mahon’s opinion supplied the only support for Plaintiffs’ claim that the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous, the inadmissibility of Mahon’s opinion was fatal to Plaintiffs’ claim. View "Hyundai Motor Co. v. Duncan" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs hired Defendants, an automotive business and its owner, to repair and restore a 1960 Ford Thunderbird. After disputes arose between the parties, Plaintiffs filed this action in the circuit court alleging breach of contract, violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA), fraud and detinue. Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs’ evidence as to all counts. The trial court granted the motion as to the fraud and VCPA counts. After a trial on the breach of contract count, the jury returned a verdict for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) striking the evidence after commenting that two witnesses were “believable” and “credible,” as the comments did not usurp the function of the jury; and (2) striking the evidence on the VCPA claim because the evidence was insufficient to go to the jury. View "Owens v. DRS Auto. FantomWorks, Inc." on Justia Law

DHRI, Inc. entered into a contract to purchase a parcel of land from William Hanback. DHRI later sued Defendant for specific performance of the land purchase contract. On June 9, 2004, the trial court entered a decree providing that Hanback should sell the property to DHRI and DHRI should pay to Hancock certain sums. On November 21, 2012, Hancock filed a petition for rule to show cause, asserting that after closing on the property, DHRI refused to pay funds owed him under the June 9, 2004 order. After a hearing, the circuit court issued a rule to show cause to DHRI. The court then determined that DHRI had not paid Hancock the required amount of $350,000, found DHRI in contempt of the June 9, 2004 order, and entered judgment for Defendant against Plaintiff in the amount of $350,000. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the rule to show cause, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion because the June 9, 2004 order did not contain definite terms as to the total amount DRHI was required to pay and when such payment was due. View "DRHI, Inc. v. Hanback" on Justia Law

Construction Manager subcontracted with Subcontractor to do work on a construction project. After the project was substantially complete, Subcontractor recorded a mechanic’s lien for unpaid work on the project. Subcontractor then filed a complaint against Construction Manager as the general contractor of the project, the owner of the property (Landowner), and the bank that financed the project (Bank) to enforce its mechanic’s lien. Construction Manager did not enter an appearance in the case. The circuit court subsequently granted an application filed by Landowner and Bank and released the real estate that had been subject to Subcontractor’s mechanic’s lien. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the mechanic’s lien claim on the basis that Subcontractor failed to timely serve Construction Manager, who it alleged to be a necessary party to the mechanic’s lien enforcement action. The circuit court agreed and dismissed the mechanic’s lien claim with prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Construction Manager, as the general contractor, was not a necessary party to Subcontractor’s mechanic’s lien enforcement action. Remanded. View "Synchronized Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Prav Lodging, LLC" on Justia Law

The Administrators of the estates of two individuals killed in a single-engine airplane crash filed wrongful death actions against Honeywell International, Inc., the manufacturer of the plane’s autopilot system, alleging that Honeywell breached of the warranty of merchantability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Honeywell. The Administrators appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erroneously admitted hearsay statements in testimony regarding an accident investigation report prepared by the Mooney Airplane Company describing its investigation of the crash, and their admission was not harmless error; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting certain opinion testimony and in allowing Honeywell’s counsel to make certain statements during closing argument. View "Harman v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1940, property owners (Yanceys) and the predecessor to Norfolk Southern Railway Company (together, Norfolk) entered into an agreement (Agreement) whereby Norfolk agreed to construct and maintain a private grade grossing over its railroad tracks. In 1996, E.A. Breeden, Inc. acquired part of the Yancey estate and leased a house upon this track to Todd Ditton and his wife. Ditton was injured when his vehicle was struck by a Norfolk train at the crossing. Ditton filed an action against Norfolk, and the parties settled. In 2006, Norfolk filed an action against Breeden seeking to recover the settlement amount based on an indemnity clause in the Agreement. The circuit court ruled that Norfolk was not entitled to indemnification or contribution from Breeden because Ditton was a successor in interest under the terms of the Agreement and his use of the crossing was independent of Breeden. Subsequently, Norfolk removed the private crossing, and Breeden sought a permanent injunction requiring Norfolk to replace and maintain the crossing. The circuit court granted the request for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding there was no material breach by Breeden and in granting the injunction. View "Norfolk S. Ry. v. E.A. Breeden, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1989, Plaintiff inherited an interest in a real estate cooperative (“the Association”). Plaintiff became a member of the cooperative and executed a mutual ownership contract with the Association in which Plaintiff acquired a possessory interest in a dwelling (“unit”). A paragraph of the contract (“the Provide and Pay Provision”) required the association to "provide and pay for the property" except that Plaintiff shall make “minor interior repairs.” In 2011, Plaintiff began experiencing plumbing problems in her unit. After the Association refused to replace Plaintiff’s pipes, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the Provide and Pay Provision obligated the Association to replace the pipes. The circuit court concluded that the Provide and Pay Provision did not obligate the Association to replace the pipes and declined to award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by (1) finding that Plaintiff failed to prove that the parties intended the Association to make the repairs Plaintiff sought; and (2) declining to award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees. View "Robinson-Huntley v. G.W. Carver Mut. Homes Ass'n" on Justia Law