- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
Robinson v. McMurtrie (In re Peak 3 Constr., LLC), 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 833, 2020 WL 1696102 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Mar. 31, 2020)
In September 2015, Daniel McMurtrie (“McMurtrie”) and Peak 3 Construction, LLC (“Peak”) entered into a contract (the “Contract”) for Peak to renovate McMurtrie’s residence (the “Project”). Initial progress on the Project was delayed by incomplete demolition by a different contractor. Throughout Peak’s performance of the Project, the scope of the Project changed, with various changes and additions requested by McMurtrie, sometimes through Larry Cooper (“Cooper”), whom Peak perceived to be McMurtrie’s liaison, and sometimes through Mary Catlett (“Catlett”), the interior designer on the Project. These changes, in conjunction with the demolition delay, caused Peak to realize in mid-November that the Project could not be completed by Christmas. On February 9, 2016, Peak emailed McMurtrie outlining the job costs, both completed and remaining costs, based on the current scope of work. McMurtrie neither objected nor terminated the Contract. Peak continued work on the Project and, on February 15, 2016, sent McMurtrie a $106,432.45 invoice (the “First Invoice”).
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
In re Lansdowne Constr., LLC, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 461, 2020 WL 930107 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Fed. 21, 2020)
In June 2016, 3 Boys, LLC (“3 Boys”) and Lansdowne Construction, LLC (“Lansdowne”) entered into a contract (the “Contract”) for Lansdowne to serve as a general contractor on the Rosner Stafford Toyota project in Stafford, Virginia. The Contract required Lansdowne to warrant with the submittal of an Application for Payment (“Pay App”) that all Work for which Certificates for Payment were previously issued and payments received from the Owner was free and clear of liens and claims in favor of subcontractors or material suppliers by reasons of having provided labor or materials relating to the Work. The Contract also gave the Architect the right to withhold payment if a lien was filed or likely would be filed and gave the Owner the right to issue joint checks to Lansdowne and any subcontractor or material supplier whom Lansdowne failed to pay.
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
Watts v. 350 Church St. LLC, 103 Va. Cir. 386 (Fairfax Cnty. Cir. Ct. Nov. 19, 2019)
Following delays in the construction of their new home, homeowners terminated their building contract and demanded that the builder return their deposit. When the builder refused, the homeowners filed suit under two theories of recovery: (i) violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act (“VCPA”); and (ii) unjust enrichment. The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract. The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendants’ attorneys’ fees. At the end of a bench trial, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ attorneys’ fees because the defendants produced no evidence during the trial of attorneys’ fees.
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
Myrick v. Rare Hospitality Int'l, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6227, 2020 WL 201050 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2020)
Rachel Myrick (“Myrick”) was bit by a copperhead snake while dining at a restaurant and filed a complaint for common-law negligence against Southpoint II, LLC (“Southpoint”), W.J. Vakos & Company, and W.J. Vakos Management Company (collectively, the “Developers”). Myrick alleged that Southpoint acquired, designed, and developed a 264-acre property in Spotsylvania County (the “Property”) in 2001 and the Developers built a man-made storm water retention pond that bordered the restaurant. Myrick alleged that copperheads frequently hibernate in dens made of rocks and that the retention pond contained decorative boulders and plantings. Myrick alleged that the Developers knew or should have known that the retention pond and its surrounding
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
Freemason St. Area Ass'n v. City of Norfolk, 103 Va. Cir. 244 (City of Norfolk Cir. Ct. Oct. 21, 2019)
A property was built in 1901 in the West Freemason Section of Norfolk, Virginia (the “Grandy House”). In 1977, the City of Norfolk (“City”) established the West Freemason Historic District (the “Historic District”) and the Grandy House contributed to the Historic District. In 2015, Dr. Mark S. Sinesi (“Sinesi”) purchased the Grandy House with the intent to renovate the Grandy House. Sinesi developed construction plans and expended funds in support of this effort. On December 16, 2016, an arsonist set the house on fire, damaging the porch and the interior. Due to the damage, the City issued multiple citations to Sinesi, which required that he make certain repairs or improvements to the Grandy House. Sinesi did not make the repairs or improvements. On June
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
West v. Christopher Consultants, 2020 Va. Cir. LEXIS 82 (Loudoun Cnty. Cir. Ct. Jun. 10, 2020)
After moving in, new-home purchasers discovered that their home was subject to flooding. Evidence indicated that both the homeowners association (“HOA”) and the engineering firm that designed the community’s stormwater flows knew about the flooding beforehand.
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred Gen. Contracting Co., 2020 Va. Cir. LEXIS 80 (Fairfax Cnty. Ct. June 8, 2020)
On February 21, 2019, Donn Milton and Rebecca Bowerman (“Milton/Bowermann”), the parties against whom the law firm EvansStarrett, PLC (“EvansStarrett”) had previously represented Goode & Preferred Gen. Contracting Co. (“Goode/Preferred”) in a dispute over construction invoices, offered to resolve all disputes between Milton/Bowerman and Goode/Preferred by wiring the total of the arbitration award for damages and attorney fees ($246,985.58) to EvansStarrett’s trust account by February 28, 2019. At that time, Goode/Preferred knew that it owed EvansStarrett
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
Am. Majestic Constr., LLC v. Junior, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77999 (E.D. Va. May 4, 2020)
American Majestic Construction, LLC (“AMC”) sued Christopher Junior (“Chris”), Paul Junior, and Paul Bao Nguyen (“Paul” and with Chris and Paul Junior, the “Defendants”) for conspiring to falsely present themselves to the public as partners or members of AMC to procure construction contracts for their own benefit. AMC alleged that Chris forged an AMC lien waiver to make it appear that roofing work done on a property previously owned by Chris’ father Paul Junior (the “Property”) had been done by AMC when, in fact, Chris and/or his father had done the work themselves. In Chris’ deposition, he admitted to forging the signature of Walther Morales (“Morales”), a worker who sometimes assisted AMC with its construction projects, on an AMC lien waiver
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
United States ex rel. Davidheiser v. Capital Rail Constructors, 433 F. Supp. 3d. 899 (E.D. Va. Oct. 22, 2019)
In 2016, Nathan Davidheiser (“Nathan”) filed a qui tam complaint against Capital Rail Constructors (“CRC”), its subcontractor, Universal Concrete Products Corporation (“UCPC”), and other defendants. On May 16, 2019, Relator Davidheiser (“Relator”) initiated the present case, renaming CRC. Both qui tam complaints alleged violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act (“VFATA”) based on falsification of quality control records for concrete sold to CRC. In early 2018, the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, the “Government”) notified Relator that it intended to intervene in the claims against all named co-defendants except CRC. A two-year investigation produced no evidence that CRC
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
Viano v. THD At-Home Servs., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62999 (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2020)
On October 22, 2016, John Farr (“Farr”), a sales consultant for The Home Depot At-Home Services (“Home Depot”), inspected Emilo and Vanessa Viano’s (“Vianos”) home in Arlington, Virginia and represented to the Vianos that Home Depot would be the Vianos ‘one-stop shop’ for the roofing work needed on the home. On December 22, 2016, Farr re-inspected the Vianos’ home and represented that Home Depot was competent, able to perform the work, and that Home Depot was trustworthy and maintained a good reputation with customers. On December 23, 2016, the Vianos and Home Depot entered into a home improvement contract (the “Contract”), which provided for the repair and replacement of three roofs. The Contract included a Roofing Spec Sheet
- Written by: Scott W. Kowalski, Mark A. Burgin, Thomas M. Wolf, Kenneth T. Stout and Jason F. Goldsmith
Riddel v. Commonwealth, 2020 Va. App. LEXIS 56, 2020 WL 1042169 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2020)
In 2017, Donald and Kelly Carpenter (the “Carpenters”) were selling their home and directed their real estate agent, Marc Bertinelli (“Bertinelli”), to contract with Jeffrey Riddel (“Riddel”) to inspect and, if necessary, repair their septic system. On June 14, 2017, Riddel inspected the septic system and recommended several repairs to Bertinelli. Acting as the Carpenters’ agent, Bertinelli verbally agreed for Riddel to perform the repairs, believing that Riddel and his associates would be performing the repairs. Riddel’s subcontractor pumped the septic system and an associate of Riddel’s performed the repairs. Riddel delivered the final bill to Bertinelli with instructions for the Carpenters to pay Fairfax Suburban Septic. After paying, the Carpenters discovered that neither
