Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The circuit court did not err by concluding that a holographic writing did not comply with Va. Code 64.2-403 or -404.After the decedent died, the executor of the decedent’s estate submitted the decedent’s will and a writing written across a divider in a binder filled with estate planning documents that the executor argued was a codicil. The circuit court clerk admitted the will to probate but concluded that the writing was not a validly executed codicil. The executor appealed. The circuit court refused to probate the writing as a codicil, concluding that it did not comply with the statutory requirements set forth in section 64.2-403. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record supported the circuit court’s rulings that the writing was neither signed in the manner required by section 64.2-403(A) nor intended to constitute a codicil. View "Irving v. Divito" on Justia Law

At issue was whether evidence of a search must be suppressed under Va. Code 19.2-54 because a magistrate incorrectly faxed only portions of a search warrant to the clerk of the circuit court.Defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the magistrate’s failure to properly fax the search warrant to the clerk’s office rendered the warrant invalid. The trial court agreed that the warrant was defective but denied the suppression motion on the ground that the search was justified by exigent circumstances. The court of appeals reversed, arguing that section 19.2-54 rendered the fruits of the search inadmissible as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the trial court’s order of conviction, holding that, even assuming that the magistrate’s incomplete faxing rendered the search warrant invalid under section 19.2-54, the search was justified as a warrantless search under the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. View "Commonwealth v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Where an income tax return has not been filed by the return date on a writ of fieri facias, any potential income tax refunds for the applicable tax year are not “in possession of or under the control of the debtor” so as to be reachable by the lien under Va. Code 8.01-501 and -507.Creditors obtained separate judgments against Debtors and issued to Debtors writs of fieri facias. The general district court entered transfer orders in favor of Creditors requiring Debtors to turn over their 2015 income tax refunds to Creditors. Debtors appealed the transfer orders to the circuit court, arguing that the general district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the transfer orders because Debtors had not filed their 2015 income tax returns as of the return date of the writ. The circuit court ruled in favor of Creditors. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, for purposes of Va. Code 8.01-507, Debtors were not entitled to, nor did they have a fixed property interest in, the 2015 income tax refunds at the time of the return date on the writ of fieri facias. View "Shifflett v. Latitude Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue was whether, during the sale of JB&A, Inc., a government contracting firm, to MCR Federal, LLC, another government contractor, MCR’s false statement of that a representation and warranty in the contract remained true was a fraudulent act independent of the contractual relationship such that JB&A properly brought actions for both fraud and breach of contract. The trial court held MCR liable for breach of contract and constructive fraud and awarded $12 million in compensatory damages. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) JB&A did not bring proper claims for actual or constructive fraud; (2) the evidence presented at trial established that MCR’s breach of contract caused JB&A substantial damages; (3) the trial court properly granted compensatory damages of $12 million and pre-judgment interest of $3.5 million; and (4) the trial court erred in awarding JB&A attorney’s fees in the amount of $1.9 million for prevailing on its claim of constructive fraud. View "MCR Federal, LLC v. JB&A, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff’s claims of undue influence in this action seeking to void a trust established by the decedent eight days before his death. Plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, argued that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the trust and that Defendant, the drafter of the trust, used his position to procure the trust. When Defendant separately filed a complaint seeking to establish the will established by the decedent at the same time he established the trust as the last true will and testament of the decedent, Plaintiff filed a counterclaim asserting that the will was executed under Defendant’s undue influence and was therefore void. The circuit court sustained Defendant’s plea in bar to the counterclaim and then granted summary judgment to Defendant on the complaint claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s claims of undue influence. View "Kim v. Kim" on Justia Law

A court may raise judicial estoppel on its own motion in an appropriate case, and therefore, the doctrine is not waived if not pled by the parties.After Plaintiff initiated Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, he filed a defamation claim against Defendants. Plaintiff subsequently completed the payments required by the Chapter 13 plan, and the bankruptcy court ordered the discharge of his remaining unsecured debts. Defendants moved for summary judgment and then filed a reply brief to Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to the motion, arguing that Plaintiff was judicially estopped from prosecuting his defamation claim because he failed to timely disclose it to the bankruptcy court. The circuit court granted the motion, concluding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel prohibited Plaintiff from prosecuting his defamation claim after taking the position in the bankruptcy court that it did not exist. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of judicial estoppel was not waived by Defendants for their failure to raise it in their pleadings; and (2) Plaintiff identified no reversible error in the circuit court’s application of judicial estoppel. View "Eilber v. Floor Care Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court awarding a sales commission to a real estate broker (Broker) despite the fact that a contemplated sale ultimately never took place. The trial court concluded (1) the Broker was a third-party beneficiary of the sale agreement, (2) the parties to the agreement waived its time-is-of-the-essence provision, and (3) the Seller improperly prevented the closing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred as a matter of law by awarding the Broker a sales commission on the ground that the Seller improperly prevented the closing because the trial court misapplied the prevention doctrine. View "Rastek Construction & Development Corp. v. General Land Commercial Real Estate Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court ordered that Kurt J. Pomrenke be removed immediately from the office of Judge of the Twenty-Eighth Juvenile and Domestic Relations Judicial District, concluding that Judge Pomrenke’s conduct was of sufficient gravity to require that the court remove him from office.The Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission of Virginia charged Judge Pomrenke with engaging in misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice while serving as a juvenile and domestic relations district court judge. After a hearing, the Commission filed a formal complaint against Judge Pomrenke asserting that its charges were of sufficient gravity to constitute the basis for retirement, censure, or removal. The Supreme Court held that Judge Pomrenke’s violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct for the Commonwealth of Virginia were grave and substantial and of sufficient gravity to warrant removal. View "Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission v. Pomrenke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the State Corporation Commission’s (SCC) denial of claims filed by a group of Kentucky hospitals requesting reimbursement for legal fees and costs from Reciprocal of America (ROA), an insolvent insurer. On appeal, the Hospitals argued that certain agreements constituting an assumption reinsurance transaction provided a contractual basis for the claims requiring ROA to indemnify them for legal fees and costs incurred in certain litigation and that the SCC erred in concluding otherwise. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the SCC did not err in concluding that the governing contractual provisions did not obligate ROA to reimburse the Hospitals for legal fees an costs that they incurred in the legal proceedings. View "Appalachian Regional Healthcare v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the determination of the trial court that Appellant, an inmate, could not proceed in forma pauperis with his petition for a writ of mandamus.Consistent with Va. Code 8.01-691, Appellant attached several documents to his petition for writ of mandamus that detailed the history of his inmate trust account. The court denied Appellant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Department’s policies and procedures explain the “loans” and “deposits” that appear on inmate trust account documentation; (2) the value of services for photocopies and legal mail and the inmate’s obligation to repay the Department for the value of those services do not constitute a “deposit” within the plain meaning of that term; and (3) the “deposits” reflected in Appellant’s trust account documents were not “deposits” within the ordinary meaning of that term, and given the absence of actual “deposits,” the trial court erred in denying Appellant in forma pauperis status. View "Grethen v. Robinson" on Justia Law