Docket – October 4, 2018

Supreme Court of Virginia

Haynes-Garrett v. Dunn (P), SCV (McClanahan) from Va. Beach (Shockley).

When the plaintiff and her family rented the defendants’ vacation home for their weeklong stay at Virginia Beach, the defendants owed her only the duty that a landlord owes its tenant, not the duty an innkeeper owes its guest. The circuit court didn’t err in holding otherwise.

An innkeeper’s continued presence on and control over the property during guests’ occupation justifies an elevated duty of care. But here, the defendants used the rental home as a second house their family used during certain times of the year, available for rent only during the other times. Furthermore, the defendants didn’t make the rental home available to the general public and weren’t even permitted to enter without prior notification to their realtor.

Affirmed.

Meuse v. Henry (P), SCV (Lemons) from Alexandria (Dawkins).

The court finds no basis to reverse the circuit court’s confirmation of an arbitration award. An attorney’s failure to obtain a signature for his client’s conflict waiver wasn’t a violation of public policy that should void the contract whose terms were arbitrated. In addition, the McCammon Group, as arbitrators, didn’t exceed their powers under Code § 8.01-581.010(3) or deny the plaintiff a fair hearing by declining to issue subpoenas.

Affirmed.

J&R Enters. v. Ware Creek Real Estate Corp. (U), SCV (per curiam) from New Kent.

The high court reversed an award of $30,000, which the plaintiff claimed was the amount of its real-estate brokerage commission. The subject property was not “sold” during the listing agreement’s operative period so as to trigger the commission obligation. Purchasers signed a contract during that period, but it was contingent on securing adequate financing, which they tried but failed to do.

Reversed and remanded.

Walton v. Clarke (U), SCV (per curiam) from City of Richmond.

After being granted 30 days from May 6, 2016 to amend his petition to comply with Code § 8.01-655(B), the petitioner mailed his amended petition to the circuit court on June 3, 2016. However, the circuit court advised him that it never received the amended petition and dismissed his cause.

But after the record was transmitted to the Supreme Court, the circuit court clerk was able to locate the amended habeas petition, postmarked June 3, 2016 and stamped as received by the circuit court clerk’s office on the morning of June 6, 2016.

Reversed and remanded.

U.S. District Court – Eastern District

Steves & Sons Inc. v. Jeld-Wen, EDVA at Richmond (Payne).

Intervenors were entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to counterclaims they defended against at trial, even when the defendants never formally stated those claims against them or asked the jury to find them specifically liable.



Categories: Daily Dockets

%d bloggers like this: