Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs are the estranged great grandchildren of Elsie and legatees to one half of her residuary estate under a will dated 2004 and admitted to probate following Elsie's death in 2010. The defendants are Audrey, Elsie's sister and legatee to the remaining half of her residuary estate, and Elsie’s former neighbors, Toni, Bruce, and Mike. Elsie's will nominated Toni as executrix; Toni and Audrey took possession of significant assets from Elsie during Elsie’s life. Toni and Bruce began providing assistance to Elsie and her husband in 2004 under a contract providing that Toni and Bruce would be paid $500 per week and would receive $8000 for assistance given in the past. The agreement provided that Toni and Bruce would be paid from her estate, rather than during her lifetime. The trial court found that that Toni, while acting as an agent under the power of attorney, did not arrange for Elsie’s assets to pass at death to the defendant, that the assets in question were retitled by Elsie personally. The Virginia Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Toni was in a confidential relationship with Elsie and the burden was on the defendants to rebut the presumption that the transactions were the result of undue influence. View "Ayers v. Shaffer" on Justia Law

In 2008 and 2009, Dr. Raley was employed by Minimally Invasive Spine Institute, PLLC (MISI), a medical practice owned and managed by Haider. Raley claimed MISI had failed to pay him all the money he earned and filed suit in 2010, claiming breach of contract and breach of implied contract against MISI. In Count II, Raley sued MISI as well as Haider, alleging that Haider wrongfully distributed money from MISI to himself, depleting MISI of funds in violation of Code § 13.1-1035, which governs distributions made by Virginia LLCs. The trial court agreed that Raley, who was not a member of MISI, could not bring a cause of action under Code § 13.1-1035, and dismissed Raley’s Count II claim. Raley was awarded $395,428.70 plus interest against MISI., but has been unable to collect the judgment. He filed a garnishment proceeding, naming Haider as the garnishee. Raley also filed a second complaint against Haider, Minimally Invasive Pain Institute, PLLC (MIPI) and Wise, LLC (Wise). The cases were consolidated. The trial court dismissed all counts, based upon the dismissal with prejudice of Count II of the original case. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that res judicata does not bar claims against MIPI and Wise and Raley’s Count I or garnishment claims against Haider, but does bar other claims against Haider. View "Raley v. Haider" on Justia Law

Jack Bays, Inc. did site work on the construction of a new church (New Life). Jack Bays contracted with several subcontractors, eleven of which were parties to this action. New Life obtained additional funds for the project through three lenders. The Lenders were listed on the deed of trust for the new financing. After New Life stopped making to Jack Bays due to lack of funding, Jack Bays recorded its memorandum of mechanics' lien against New Life and terminated the construction contract. All Contractors timely filed complaints against the Lenders. The circuit court ordered that the property be sold at public auction with the proceeds to be applied in satisfaction of the mechanics' liens in the following order of priority: Subcontractors, Jack Bays, and Lenders. The Lenders appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in finding that Jack Bays' lien was valid; (2) was not plainly wrong in determining that the Contractors' liens had priority over the Lenders' deed of trust; but (3) erred in approving the sale of the entire parcel of land to satisfy the Contractors' liens, where no evidence was introduced to support this decision. Remanded.View "Glasser & Glasser, PLC v. Jack Bays, Inc." on Justia Law

Employee filed a complaint against Corporation seeking damages for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and wrongful termination. Previous to the suit, Corporation offered Employee a severance package that Employee rejected because it would have taken away any rights to a claim for a change in control. A jury found for Employee on all counts except for wrongful termination. The trial court awarded damages and attorney's fees to Employee. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding the circuit court did not err when it (1) refused to hold, as a matter of law, that Employee failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a change in control occurred; (2) instructed the jury to construe any ambiguities in the contracts against the drafter; (3) submitted Employee's alternative theory of mandatory severance benefits to the jury; (4) submitted Employee's claim for unjust enrichment to the jury; (5) admitted the testimony of Employee's damages expert; and (6) awarded Employee attorneys' fees and expenses for breach of the severance agreement. However, the trial court erred in determining that the severance agreement entitled Employee to recover his legal fees for claims that were not related to breach of the severance agreement. View "Online Res. Corp. v. Lawlor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought coverage under his homeowners' insurance policy issued by Insurer for damages allegedly caused by sheets of drywall manufactured in China that were installed in his home during its construction. Insurer denied Plaintiff's claim and brought an action in the U.S. district court, seeking a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff's homeowners policy did not provide coverage for such losses. The district court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the policy did not provide coverage for the damages allegedly caused by the drywall because of certain policy exclusions. The U.S. court of appeals certified to the Virginia Supreme Court the question of whether the policy exclusions were applicable to Plaintiff's claimed losses. The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, holding that the policy unambiguously excluded from coverage damage caused by the Chinese drywall installed in Plaintiff's residence. View "TravCo Insurance Co. v. Ward" on Justia Law

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VPI) and Prosper Financial (Prosper) entered into a research contract. The contract provided two addresses in Florida for Prosper. VPI subsequently filed a complaint in Virginia for breach of contract. VPI attempted to secure service of process on Prosper through the Secretary of the Commonwealth. In its affidavit for service of process on the Secretary, VPI listed the address contained in the contract's notice provision as Prosper's last known address. After Prosper failed to file responsive pleadings, the trial court entered a default judgment against Prosper. Upon Prosper's motion, the trial court determined the order of default judgment should be set aside because service of process should have been attempted at both Florida addresses. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the final judgment against Prosper, holding (1) the use of one of the two Prosper addresses known to VPI was constitutional and satisfied the requirements of Va. Code Ann. 8.01-329(B), and therefore, the trial court's determination that both addresses were required was error; and (2) the trial court erred in setting aside the order of default judgment brought pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-428(D) without identifying its findings on the necessary elements of the action. View "Va. Polytechnic Inst. v. Prosper Fin., Inc." on Justia Law

These companion appeals arose out of a dispute between a government contractor, Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. (PSS) and one of its subcontractors, GP Consulting, LLC (GP). PSS sued GP following GP's termination of its contract with PSS and its commencement of a subsequent contract with a PSS competitor. PSS alleged breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference with contract, seeking injunctive as well as monetary relief. PSS was ultimately awarded $172,396 in compensatory damages based on the circuit court's finding that GP breached the noncompete clause in the parties' contract. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in (1) awarding damages to PSS for lost profits as a result of GP's breach of the noncompete clause; and (2) refusing to grant PSS injunctive relief, in concluding that PSS failed to prove tortious interference, and in dismissing PSS' trade secret claim. View "Preferred Sys. Solutions, Inc. v. GP Consulting, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, owners of garaged lots in a subdivision, filed a complaint against the homeowners' association (HOA) alleging that the unequal treatment resulting from the HOA's assignment of parking spaces only to ungaraged lots in an amendment violated the subdivision's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (the Declaration). The circuit court determined that the amendment was invalid and ruled that the reservation of parking spaces in the common area for use solely by owners of ungaraged lots violated the Declaration. The court also found Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in ruling the Declaration requires that parking spaces in the common area be assigned equally among all lot owners; (2) did not err in ruling that the amendment was invalid; (3) erred in its award of certain compensatory damages but did not err in awarding other compensatory damages; and (4) did not err in ruling that Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees and in determining the amount of that award. Remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiffs subsequent to the court's entry of the judgment appealed from. View "Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt" on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether the circuit court erred in allowing Plaintiff to take a nonsuit as a matter of right pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-380(B) based on its determination that Plaintiff's prior voluntary dismissal in federal court was not a nonsuit under section 8.01-380. In Virginia, a plaintiff may take only one nonsuit as a matter of right. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in finding that Plaintiff was permitted to take a nonsuit as a matter of right pursuant to section 8.01-380(B), holding (1) Va. Code Ann. 8.01-229(E)(3) does not confirm or suggest that a voluntary dismissal taken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a nonsuit for purposes of section 8.01-380; and (2) Plaintiff's prior voluntary dismissal in federal court was not substantially equivalent to Virginia's nonsuit in this regard. View "Inova Health Care Servs. v. Kebaish" on Justia Law

In this case the circuit court determined that Plaintiff, the prevailing party on both its claim for compensation under the contract and Defendant's counterclaim for Plaintiff's alleged breach of the contract, was entitled to only a nominal award of one dollar in attorneys' fees for its defense of the counterclaim because Defendant had a "good faith" basis for alleging the breach. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment awarding one dollar in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiff for its successful defense of Defendant's counterclaim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine a proper award of attorneys' fees. Additionally, upon remand, the Court concluded Plaintiff may submit to the circuit court a claim for additional attorneys' fees, and the court shall award such fees and expenses it determines to be reasonable and necessary for the successful prosecution of this appeal and defense of Defendant's assignment of cross-error thereto. View "Dewberry & Davis, Inc. v. C3NS, Inc." on Justia Law