Warrenton, VA
Litigation Lawyer at Warrenton, VA
Practice Areas: Litigation, Divorce & Separation ... +3 more
OUTCOME: Affirmed.
The Virginia Court of Appeals reviews trial counsel's obligation to the client in criminal representation, and further examines a trial court's obligation to avoid a conflict of interest in presiding o ... ver certain litigation as fact finder.
OUTCOME: Affirmed. Judge Winn dissenting.
In the Eastern District of Virginia, the issue was whether a single click on a website link from the defendant’s IP address supported probable cause for a search warrant of the defendant’s home. Affirm ... ing the trial court, the Fourth Circuit held that probable cause existed and rejected the defendant’s other challenges to the search warrant.
OUTCOME: The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the action is remanded.
In a declaratory judgment action under the Virginia Property Owners' Association Act, Code §§ 55-508 to 55-516.2, the circuit court erred in ruling that a recorded declaration for a six-lot subdivision ... was not enforceable under the Act, and that an unincorporated architectural control committee created by that instrument failed to qualify as a property owners' association under the Act. A declaration must expressly both impose responsibilities and authorize assessments before an entity qualifies as a property owners’ association under the Act. Here, the demarcation of a road as an easement on the plat incorporated into the declaration was sufficient to fulfill the designation requirement for a common area, and the terms of the declaration expressly impose upon the architectural control committee a duty to maintain the road and authorize it to impose assessments for the costs of such maintenance. Consequently, both the declaration and the committee fulfill the qualifications imposed by the Act. However, all references in the declaration to any entity having power or responsibility under the Act refer to the architectural control committee, not an unincorporated property owners’ association, and nothing in the declaration either imposes upon the association a duty to maintain the road or authorizes it to impose assessments for road maintenance costs. This association therefore does not qualify as a property owners’ association under the Act, and the circuit court did not err by so ruling. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the action is remanded.
OUTCOME: Reversed and Remanded.
In a case for timber trespass under the provisions of Code § 55-332, the trial court erred in ruling that the statutory phrase allowing recovery of “directly associated legal costs” includes attorney’s ... fees. Virginia follows the “American Rule,” under which, absent a specific contractual or statutory provision to the contrary, attorney’s fees are not recoverable by a prevailing litigant from the losing litigant. The authority for awarding costs and attorney’s fees is in derogation of common law and, therefore, subject to strict interpretation. In this statute, the General Assembly did not include the right to recover attorney’s fees. On the issue of damages, nothing in Code § 55-332(B) states that an owner is only entitled to a recovery of the amounts specified therein only after establishing the value of the timber that was improperly taken. Thus, the fact that the plaintiff in this case was unable to prove the value of the timber on the stump did not preclude her from being able to recover the other damages she was entitled to under Code § 55-332(B). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in allowing her claim for timber trespass to go the jury. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the action is remanded.