Posts by John Tarley:
- made when the decedent lacked the mental capacity at the time the Will was made, or
- the most recent Will was made under the undue influence by a person who held a position of trust and confidence with the decedent.
Virginia Supreme Court upholds arbitration award granted to homeowners who sued their HOA
October 30th, 2014It is relatively routine for developers or “declarants” to include arbitration provisions into the declaration of restrictive covenants recorded to establish a common interest community. Generally, arbitration clauses are preferred by developers for a variety of reasons including avoiding a jury and having a say in the choice of the fact-finder. However, those decisions made by the developers have long lasting effects upon homeowner boards following transition, because it is difficult for a board to effect a change in the documents.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Estate Administration: Will Contests and Testamentary Capacity
October 30th, 2014Readers of our website may notice that we list “Estate Administration” as an area of our practice. We assist executors of wills, or personal representatives of estates to properly dispose of a decedent’s assets.
Occasionally, we get involved in cases in which a party contests a decedent’s Will that has been probated with the court. Typically, that person will claim that another Will should be considered the proper Will because the most recent Will was either
In the case of Weedon v. Weedon, an older woman with a diagnosis of multiple myeloma revised her Will in 2007. Prior to surgery in 2008, she decided to revise her Will again. As part of the revisions, the testatrix decided to bequest all of her real property to just one of her five children (who had also taken the role of caregiver for her mother). Four days after signing the new Will (and three days after surgery), the decedent died. After the will was probated, the remaining four children sued their sister seeking an order that either their mother lacked the mental capacity to make the revised Will; or that the revised Will was made as a result of their sister’s undue influence.
The King George Circuit Court determined that the decedent lacked the testamentary capacity when she executed the Will and that the Will was the result of undue influence, but the Virginia Supreme Court reversed. In this blog post, we examine the direction given by the Virginia Supreme Court in determining whether a decedent had the mental capacity at the time the Will was made.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Oral Contracts are enforceable, but . . . .
October 30th, 2014Many times, parties enter into informal loan agreements on a simple oral promise to “pay it back.” Similarly, others will enter into oral agreements to perform residential construction projects, or other types of projects. When things do not go as expected and the promises are of a value worth litigating over (or one of the parties to the promise thinks they are) things can go swiftly downhill.
Contracts
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
3 tips for safe emailing with your attorney
October 30th, 2014Obviously the use of email has changed many aspects of our world, including the practice of law. As with all new technology, we sometimes learn hard lessons. The attorney-client privilege is the foundation of effective communication between counsel and clients. Only a client can waive that privilege. Although email has far more positives than negatives, to protect attorney-client communications, use these three tips.
Attorney-Client Privilege
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Email scams (continued)
October 30th, 2014We have previously written a blog piece warning of increased email scam activity and sophistication. Expect more. Another victim of these email scams has come to light, and this victim was a lawyer. An article in Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly told the story of a lawyer victim of a successful email scam. This blog post provides another warning against these scams.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Has your business been paid with a check endorsed as “Payment in Full?”
October 30th, 2014Many of us have been paid by a check that includes the written endorsement of “payment in full.” By this endorsement, the maker (writer of the check) intends to settle any dispute once the payee (recipient of the check) deposits the check. The payee worries that by depositing the check, he is waiving any right to demand full payment for the service or supply provided. This blog post addresses Virginia law and each party’s rights with respect to the endorsement of “payment in full.”
![MP900341937[1]](http://blog.tarleyrobinson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MP9003419371.jpg "Business Lawyer - Virginia law on checks")
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Mediation and Arbitration – There is a big difference
October 30th, 2014In conversations with clients, it seems that people misuse the terms “mediation” and “arbitration” more than most other legal terms. Although I do not have any empirical data, my educated guess is that many businesses and construction contractors (who did not depend upon advice given by an experienced business attorney) insert “arbitration” clauses into their contracts thinking that they mean “mediation.” Some transactions involving the sale of real estate include an arbitration clause. Countless times, clients involved in a potential lawsuit point to the “arbitration” clause, and are disheartened when I explain to them the arbitration process. Many thought they were avoiding the potential high costs of litigation. These terms are NOT interchangeable and in this blog post I will explain the basic differences between them.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Part 2 of The Rule of Caveat Emptor in the Sale of Real Estate vs. a Seller’s Duty to Disclose
October 30th, 2014We wrote earlier about a Charlottesville case in which the court analyzed the duty to disclose for a seller of residential real estate. Although Virginia follows the general rule of caveat emptor, the court ruled that the seller, who was also a licensed real estate agent, may have violated a duty to disclose material adverse facts.
The purchasers alleged two other counts, alleging that the seller failed “to disclose the adjacent drain problems and history of flooding, constituting both fraudulent misrepresentation and constructive fraud.” The court dismissed those claims while providing a nice, succinct history of the law of fraud in the sale of a home. This blog post reviews the general rules of fraudulent misrepresentations in residential real estate sales.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Update for Limited Liability Companies: What happens to Membership Interest when a Member Dies?
October 30th, 2014We blogged about the Virginia Supreme Court case of Ott v. Monroe. In that case, the Court ruled that when a father, in his will, assigned his majority interest in a limited liability company to his daughter, he only assigned a profit interest, not a control interest. Consequently, his daughter did not have the authority to “run” the company, absent the consent of the remaining LLC members.
In its 2013 session, the General Assembly modified the relevant LLC statutes in an attempt to overturn the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision. This blog post examines the new statute, and how it may impact your limited liability company.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation – When fees get awarded to the “Prevailing Party”
October 30th, 2014In litigation matters involving common interest communities (otherwise known as homeowners associations (“HOAs”) or condominium owners associations (“condo associations”)), the issue of awarding attorneys’ fees for prevailing parties ultimately arises. Generally, the HOA’s Governing Documents or the condo association’s Condominium Instruments contain such a provision. Otherwise, attorneys’ fees may be recoverable by statute for HOAs and condo associations.
These attorney fee-shifting provisions, either by contract or statute, are contrary to the typical “American Rule” cases in which each side pays their own attorneys’ fees. Because litigation has become so expensive to pursue, whether to award attorneys’ fees, and the amount of any award, has become separate litigation on its own at the conclusion of cases.
In the recent case of Dewberry & Davis, Inc. v. C3NS, Inc., the Virginia Supreme Court was faced with the issue of “whether the circuit court erred in applying an attorneys’ fees provision of a contract.” We had previously blogged about this case, because in the underlying contract between the parties, Dewberry & Davis, an engineering company, had limited its liability for damages. The trial court had determined the limitation of liability clause was void, pointing to a recent change to Virginia Code § 54.1-411that permitted an engineering company to include a limitation of liability clause. Because the contract predated the code change, the court determined that those changes “demonstrate that the General Assembly fully intended to alter the statute’s intent.”
The case continued to trial, and eventually, upon appeal, to the Virginia Supreme Court. This blog post explains that Supreme Court decision relating to the award of attorneys’ fees.
Republished by Blog Post Promoter