Originally posted 2011-10-18 08:45:32. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

In the Greater Williamsburg area, many small businesses face seasonal layoffs when the summer tourism season ends. For small businesses, these layoffs lead to questions regarding unemployment compensation. In this blog post, we will discuss the issue of when an employer can be liable for the unemployment compensation for a terminated employee.

Generally speaking, an employee terminated by you may be otherwise eligible for unemployment benefits, chargeable to your company if:

• you were the last employer for the employee, and
• that employee worked at least 30 days or 240 hours, and
• that employee was not terminated for cause.

The basic qualifications for unemployment compensation are:

• The employee must have been employed and earned a certain amount of wages. The Virginia Employment Commission publishes requirements for wages earned or time worked during an established period of time referred to as a “base period.”
• The employee must be determined to be unemployed through no fault of their own. An employee terminated for cause is not eligible for unemployment.

Once you have been determined to be the “employer” liable for unemployment compensation, you are responsible for all the benefits payable to that former employee. Unless extended benefits have been approved, the maximum benefit is 26 times the weekly benefits payable to the employee.

The weekly benefits are found in a table at Virginia Code § 60.1-602. This table is regularly updated, it tells you how much a person would receive per week in unemployment, based upon the amount they made when employed. For example, if a person made $6,300 in the prior twelve weeks when employed, he would receive $125 per week in unemployment, and a total of $3,250, if he were employed for the entire 26-week period.

The possibility of being liable for unemployment compensation worries many small business owners. Discuss the issue with your business attorney so that you can plan properly for your employment needs.

Tarley Robinson, PLC, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Williamsburg, Virginia

Originally posted 2011-08-23 05:00:56. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

I teach as an adjunct faculty member at the William & Mary Law School. I find this part-time teaching gig very stimulating intellectually because the law students at W&M are extremely intelligent, diligent, and driven. This past week a new class of first-year law students arrived with great expectations about their futures. The reality of the job market, though, is that the legal profession has not been immune from the effects of this difficult economy.

Some of my second-year law students have also arrived back into Williamsburg, and I have been surprised at the number of students who report they worked as an “unpaid intern.” Although this practice is permissible in certain situations, these working arrangements with private law firms probably violates federal labor laws, and it is particularly distressing that it occurs in the practice of law. This blog post provides some guidance for your small business when deciding whether to “hire” an unpaid intern.

Continue reading “Can I “hire” an unpaid intern for my business?”

Originally posted 2010-11-03 07:12:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The DPOR regulations require Class A Contractors to obtain written change orders “which are signed by both the consumer and the licensee.” This requirement sounds pretty reasonable and easy to maintain, yet the reality is that many contractors fail to fully comply with this provision, leading to possible problems down the road.

Originally posted 2011-03-08 09:04:35. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Few real estate topics cause more disputes between owners than those involving activities at a common boundary. We have reviewed boundary line disputes involving trees that straddle property lines and fences that encroach upon boundary lines.

A recent Portsmouth case highlights another issue relating to boundary lines.

Continue reading “How to avoid Real Estate Boundary Line Disputes”

Originally posted 2011-10-05 08:45:36. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Many boards of directors for community associations engage management companies to help the board operate their community. These relationships arise from written contracts negotiated by the parties. It is essential that homeowners’ associations and management companies have their contracts reviewed by their experienced HOA attorney.

When determining the terms of a contract, Virginia courts employ what is known as the “plain meaning” doctrine. This doctrine basically means that when an agreement is clear, a court will look to the ordinary meaning of the words of the contract itself. Consequently, the parties need to ensure that all of the terms they believe are part of an agreement are in the written contract itself.

A recent Virginia Supreme Court case presents a prime example of why it is important to have your association attorney review contracts between community associations and management companies. Continue reading “HOAs and Management Companies – Does your contract say what you think it says?”

Originally posted 2011-06-08 09:00:26. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

It’s a fundamental rule in Virginia that the Plaintiff (the person filing a lawsuit) can only recover the relief requested in the Complaint. In a recent unpublished decision, the Virginia Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that a party can only get relief if they ask for it.

Continue reading “In litigation, you can’t always get what you want (especially if you don’t ask)”

Originally posted 2012-04-11 06:34:29. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

I read a story in the Virginia-Pilot in which it described an incident of Citizen’s Arrest. In the story, a fire inspector, using a flashing blue light on his car, stopped a female driver. He claimed the driver had been swerving, and he stopped her because of his concern she may have been drinking.

A Suffolk, Virginia detective witnessed the incident. After consultation with fellow police officers, the police department urged the Commonwealth’s Attorney to press charges against the fire inspector for impersonating an officer.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney declined. He cited a Virginia case, Hudson v. Commonwealth, for the legal principle that private citizens have a common law right to make a “Citizen’s Arrest.”

I will not go into all of the other complicating legal issues relating to a Citizen’s Arrest, like what obligations does a person have to obey the citizen making the arrest, what force can the citizen use to make the arrest, etc. No, my purpose is more of humorous nature, because the incident reminded me of my childhood, watching Mayberry RFD. In this particular episode, Gomer Pyle shows the proper way to make a Citizen’s Arrest of Deputy Barney Fife:

Tarley Robinson, PLC, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Williamsburg, Virginia

John Tarley

Originally posted 2011-09-08 08:45:06. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

We continually warn about the use of work email accounts to correspond with your attorney:

• 3 tips for safe emailing with your attorney;
• Using a company computer to email your attorney may be a bad idea
• Emails from work computer can waive rights to privileged communications

The American Bar Association has now opined that lawyers should “warn the client about the risk of sending or receiving electronic communications using a computer or other device, or e-mail account, where there is a significant risk that a third party may gain access.” Although the ABA’s opinion is not binding upon any state regulatory bar association, it is likely that state bar associations, like the Virginia State Bar, will review this opinion with interest.

Client Email

Most of our communications are not private, even though we think they are. Work emails are not secure. Regardless of whether lawyers are required or suggested to warn clients, it is not a good idea to use your work email account to email your attorney.

Tarley Robinson, PLC, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Williamsburg, Virginia

Originally posted 2012-05-30 08:57:51. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

An article in the Washington Post discussed a pending case in the Virginia Supreme Court regarding a dispute between property owners and a community association regarding the owners’ operation of a vineyard and retail store on their property. In an unpublished Order, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld a Fauquier County jury verdict for the property owners that had been set aside by the trial court.

Although unpublished orders do not have “precedential value or . . . significance for the law or legal system,” this case does provide us with a look at how difficult it can be for community associations to interpret their governing documents and also how a board’s previous actions may have an effect upon future enforcement of the community’s declarations and covenants. This blog post will review the facts of that case and its applicability to your HOA.

Continue reading “HOA Case Study: A Board’s statements or conduct may establish the enforceability of its governing documents”

Originally posted 2012-10-17 07:45:47. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

In 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.

Continue reading “Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation – When fees get awarded to the “Prevailing Party””