HOAs and Management Companies – Does your contract say what you think it says?
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?”
Neighbor Law: Tips for Avoiding Boundary Line Disputes
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 “Neighbor Law: Tips for Avoiding Boundary Line Disputes”
Oral Contracts are enforceable, but . . . .
Many 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
Continue reading “Oral Contracts are enforceable, but . . . .”
Attorneys’ Fee Provision in a Contract is Rejected as “Unconscionable”
Introduction
As we have previously written, Virginia generally follows the “American Rule” in requests for an award of attorneys’ fees in litigation cases. Jurisdictions that follow the American Rule require each side to pay their own attorneys’ fees, unless a party can point to a statute or contract provision that allows fee-shifting.
In a recent unpublished order, the Virginia Supreme Court struck a contractual fee-shifting provision. This blog post reviews that decision.
Continue reading “Attorneys’ Fee Provision in a Contract is Rejected as “Unconscionable””