Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The U.S. district court certified questions of law to the Supreme Court concerning Virginia law. The questions arose out of a suit filed by John Wyatt, who sought monetary damages for the unauthorized adoption of his baby. Wyatt named as defendants the individuals and entities involved in the adoption and asserted numerous claims, including one for tortious interference with parental rights. Upon consideration of a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants, the district court denied the motion as to the claim for tortious interference with parental rights pending its request that the Supreme Court adjudicate whether Virginia recognizes such a cause of action. The Supreme Court (1) held Virginia recognizes tortious intereference with parental rights as a cause of action; and (2) referred the U.S. district court to the opinion for the elements constituting the tort. View "Wyatt v. McDermott" on Justia Law

Violet Seabolt filed a complaint against Albermarle County alleging that she was injured as a result of the County's gross negligence in maintaining a public park. The County filed a demurrer to gross negligence and a special plea of sovereign immunity. The circuit court sustained the demurrer as to gross negligence but declined to rule on the County's special plea of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Seabolt's complaint but on different grounds, holding that the circuit court erred by not granting the County's special plea of sovereign immunity because, in the absence of a legislative waiver of immunity, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to adjudicate Seabolt's tort claim against the County, and therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to decide the case on any other basis. View "Seabolt v. County of Albemarle" on Justia Law

Nina and her brother Eddie Russell were co-trustees of several family trusts. The trust estate consisted of the interests held by Nina and Eddie as co-trustees in Russell Realty Associates (RRA), which was created by the siblings' father. Nina and Russell disagreed about several matters and conflicts escalated. Eventually, Eddie, individually and as co-trustee, filed a complaint seeking judicial dissolution and winding up of RRA. The circuit court granted Eddie's complaint for dissolution, finding that the economic purpose of RRA was likely to be reasonably frustrated and that the business could no longer practicably operate in conformity with the partnership agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court's findings. View "Russell Realty Assocs. v. Russell" on Justia Law

Professional Building Maintenance Corporation (PBM), which provides janitorial and industrial cleaning services, filed an amended complaint against the School Board of the County of Spotsylvania asserting causes of action arising under the Virginia Public Procurement Act. PBM asserted that the School Board violated the Act because it did not award a custodial services contract to PBM, who was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, and that the School Board's failure to select PMB as the successful bidder was arbitrary and capricious. The circuit court sustained the School Board's demurrer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in sustaining the School Board's demurrer, as the amended complaint (1) adequately alleged that the School Board failed to properly follow the requirements of the Act, and (2) alleged sufficient facts of arbitrary or capricious conduct. View "Prof'l Bldg. Maint. Corp. v. School Bd." on Justia Law

PBM Nutritionals filed a declaratory judgment action against three insurance companies (collectively the Insurers) seeking insurance coverage for its loss resulting from infiltration of filter elements into the infant formula it manufactured between January 22 and January 30, 2009. The Insurers claimed that the insurance policies' "Pollution Exclusion Endorsements" excluded coverage for PBM's infant formula loss because the formula was "contaminated." The circuit court entered judgment for the Insurers. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did no err in finding that the Insurers were not liable to provide insurance coverage for PBM's loss of infant formula product. View "PBM Nutritionals, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Summit Group Properties, LLC (Summit) sued Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy Associates (OSPTA) and its partners for breach of lease and damages. OSPTA filed a counterclaim in which it alleged fraud in the inducement and damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Summit against OSPTA in the amount of $187,000. The jury found for Summit on OSPTA's counterclaim. OSPTA appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting a jury instruction offered by Summit because it misstated the law by instructing the jury that a limited liability company could not be liable for any fraudulent activity unless the fraud was approved by the members of the LLC. The Supreme Court agreed with OSPTA that the instruction was misleading because it was not a complete statement of the law and held that the trial court erred in giving the instruction. Remanded. View "Orthopedic & Sports Physical Therapy Assocs. v. Summit Group Props., LLC" on Justia Law

The Mathewses conveyed a parcel of land by deed of trust to a credit union to secure a promissory note. PHH Mortgage Corporation subsequently became the holder of the note and the beneficiary of the deed of trust. After the Mathewses failed to make payments, PHH commenced foreclosure proceedings on the parcel. The Mathewses filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the foreclosure sale would be void because PHH had not satisfied conditions precedent to foreclosure set forth in the deed of trust. Specifically, they alleged that 24 C.F.R. 203.604 (the Regulation) required PHH to have a meeting with them thirty days before the commencement of foreclosure proceedings. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the Regulation was incorporated into the deed of trust as a condition precedent to foreclosure but that, under Virginia common law, the party who breaches a contract first cannot sue to enforce it. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) borrowers may sue to enforce conditions precedent to foreclosure even if they were the first party to breach the note secured by a deed of trust through non-payment; and (2) the Mathewses pled sufficient facts for the Regulation to apply. Remanded. View "Mathews v. PHH Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law

On May 21, 2008, Lisa Laws and Carmen Tinker (Plaintiffs) each filed a complaint against Calvin McIlroy, Jr. (McIlroy) and Calvin McIlroy, Sr. for damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on June 8, 2007. GEICO and State Farm, the potential uninsured/underinsured motorist carriers were served with a copy of Laws' complaint, and State Farm was served with a copy of Tinker's complaint. Plaintiffs then filed orders of nonsuit. Plaintiffs filed second, identical lawsuits in the circuit court on January 19, 2010 before the nonsuit orders were entered by the court on February 4, 2010. McIlroy filed motions to dismiss the complaints, arguing that both cases were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Additionally, GEICO filed a plea in bar and State Farm filed a motion to dismiss, raising the same arguments made by McIlroy in his motions. The circuit court dismissed the actions with prejudice, concluding that Plaintiffs' complaints were not timely filed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred when it granted the motions to dismiss and the plea in bar, as the court erroneously interpreted the two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries. View "Laws v. McIlroy" on Justia Law

When Arvid and Lucy Keith were married, Arvid had a son from a previous marriage, Walter Keith (Keith), and Lucy had a daughter, Veronica Lulofs (Lulofs). Arvid and Lucy executed wills in 1987 that were mirror images of each other. Each will left the estate first to the surviving spouse and then to Keith and Lulofs equally. Arvid died in 1996 and his estate passed to Lucy. Lucy then executed a new will 1996 in which she left the entirety of her estate to Lulofs and made no provision for Keith. After Lucy's death, Lulofs attempted to probate Lucy's will, which Keith challenged. The trial court concluded that Keith failed to provide that the 1987 wills executed by Arvid and Lucy were irrevocable, reciprocal wills and accepted Lucy's 1996 will for probate, entering judgment accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in holding that (1) the wills did not form an irrevocable contract between the testators; and (2) Keith's testimony presenting circumstantial evidence that Arvid and Lucy intended for the wills to be contracts was not corroborated as required by the Dead Man's statute. View "Keith v. Lulofs" on Justia Law

A developer contracted with B&R Construction Management (B&R) for the demolition a redevelopment and housing authority facility (hereafter referred to as the Contract). B&R subcontracted some of the demolition work to Beamon Enterprises (Beamon). Beamon, in turn, subcontracted with Environmental Staffing Acquisition Corporation (En-Staff) to provide labor. After Beamon failed to pay En-Staff for the work performed, En-Staff filed a complaint against B&R seeking the amount it was owed under its contract with Beamon. En-Staff asserted it had standing to bring a breach of contract claim against B&R as a third-party beneficiary of the Contract. B&R filed a demurrer disputing En-Staff's status as a third-party beneficiary. The circuit court sustained B&R's demurrer and dismissed En-Staff's claims against B&R with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred in finding that the language of the Contract precluded third-party action against B&R, but the error was harmless; and (2) En-Staff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Contract because it benefitted only incidentally from the Contract. View "Envtl. Staffing Corp. v. B & R Constr. Mgmt." on Justia Law