• Recent Posts

  • Martindale Hubbell AV Rating

    The Greater Williamsburg area is an exciting place to live and work, especially because of the large number of entrepreneurs who have built businesses from the ground up. These entrepreneurs have taken their passion and made it their profession. Many of us want to take that step. Before you begin, you need to think of the type of business entity you want to form. Our attorneys have extensive business experience, from small one-person companies to publicly traded major corporations. Our attorneys are among the leaders in Virginia in the representation of Common Interest Communities. These communities are generally referred to as "homeowners associations," or "HOAs," and "condominium associations." In the greater Williamsburg area alone, we provide legal assistance to nearly 100 associations. Our attorneys have successfully prosecuted and defended a wide array of civil disputes involving community association covenant enforcement, commercial transactions, construction disputes, contracts, real estate matters, boundary line and easement disputes, employment matters, antitrust litigation, copyright violations, administrative proceedings, and estate issues. Real Estate law encompasses a wide variety of matters, and our attorneys have vast experience to assist you. Whether you need assistance with a commercial or residential closing, or you have questions relating to residential or commercial leasing, we provide experienced advice and counsel to our clients. Zoning law can be a complicated maze of statutes and ordinances. We have ample experience in successful applications for rezoning, variance, and special use permit requests. Finally, commercial and residential construction provide special challenges with respect to financing issues and the construction process. We serve as counsel to various financial institutions.
Print This Post

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

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 In a recent unpublished decision, the Virginia Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that a party can only get relief if they ask for it.

The Virginia Supreme Court set forth its position in the case of Smith v. Sink. Smith filed a lawsuit asking the trial court to determine that a road on his property was not a public road. If the road was not a public road, then Sink, the Defendant, would be prohibited from using the road.

The trial court agreed with Smith, finding that the road was not a public road. But the trial court went further, ruling that Sink could still use the road because he had acquired a “prescriptive easement.” Smith appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court was wrong because Sink never asked the court to find he had a prescriptive easement.

The Virginia Supreme Court agreed with Smith, stating that the “responsibility for asserting a right or remedy belongs to the party seeking that relief.” Because the prescriptive easement claim had not been pleaded, the trial court was precluded from making such a finding.

In the recent case of Godbolt v. Shenandoah Investments, L.L.C., one of the issues addressed by the Virginia Supreme Court involved the interpretation of the Complaint filed and the relief requested by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff lender had alleged that a mistake had been made in the drafting of a deed of trust on the property and asked the court to “fix” that mistake. Indeed, at trial both parties testified that the lender intended “to encumber both the real property and the non-possessory rights to use the adjoining shore land for recreational and agricultural uses,” but the deed of trust did not include that language. Regardless of the testimony, the trial court held that this mistake was not a “scrivener’s error” and refused to reform the deed of trust.

The Plaintiff lender then asked the trial court to determine that as a matter of law, those non-possessory rights were part of the encumbered real estate. The trial court ruled that because the Plaintiff had not asked for that relief in its lawsuit, the trial court could not make a decision on that issue.

The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. Because the Plaintiff had not expressly requested that relief in its Complaint, the trial court was without the authority to render judgment.

Lawsuits are time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, your legal position may change during the course of the litigation. To get to the end of the case, and have a judge rule that your lawsuit does not include a request for the relief you actually want can create a lot of acrimony (among other things). You and your litigation attorney should review your claim in fine detail to make sure that you CAN get what you want.


Tarley Robinson, PLC, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law

Williamsburg, Virginia

 

John Tarley

John Tarley

Republished by Blog Post Promoter

John Tarley

John is the firm's managing partner and chairs the firm's small business, zoning, and litigation practice areas.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
Twitter

Filed under: Construction litigation, Contributors, General Interest, HOA litigation, John Tarley, Real Estate Litigation, State & Federal Litigation by John Tarley

Leave a Reply

« | »
Web Development by OneWaveMedia.Com