Virginia Maryland Civil Litigation Laws Attorney Lawyer

Virginia Agreement Statutory Conspiracy Breach Contract Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:00:28 +0000

Company’s agreements with the owners and with the developer and the principal did not implicate statutory or independent common law duties. Consequently, merely alleging breach of those contracts was insufficient to establish a claim of statutory conspiracy under Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-499 and 18.2-500.

Virginia Civil Litigation is a vast area of law.

So how do you decide who to hire when you have to file a Virginia civil suit that deals with a Virginia breach of contract, a Virginia contract dispute, Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia arbitration litigation or Virginia noncompete dispute, etc.

The first step is you determine if the Virginia lawyer you are contemplating hiring has experience as a Virginia commercial litigation lawyer, Virginia business litigation lawyer, Virginia foreclosure attorney, Virginia arbitration lawyer or Virginia noncompete dispute attorney.

Why should you make sure your Virginia lawyer is an experienced lawyer in this area of Virginia civil litigation?

For one VERY simple reason.

There is no point in paying a Virginia civil lawyer to learn about Virginia contract law, Virginia noncompete law, Virginia foreclosure law, etc on your time.

You need an experienced Virginia civil litigation attorney to assist you with your Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia business litigation, Virginia contracts, etc.

One of our most experienced Virginia civil litigation lawyers in Virginia work in Northern Virginia. He regularly practices before the Fairfax Court, Arlington Court, Alexandria Courts & Prince William County Courts.

So if you have a really complex Virginia arbitration litigation case, Virginia commercial litigation case, Virginia business litigation case, Virginia contract dispute, call the SRIS Law Group Virginia civil litigation attorneys for help.

SRIS Law Group Philosophy

How your case is handled may make all the difference in world as to how your life progresses from this potentially traumatic event. Don’t let someone who will not keep you informed as to the status of your case keep you in the dark. The relationship you have with your attorney during this very difficult period can have a substantial impact on your mental health. You need and deserve a lawyer who is looking out for you.

What you do not want is a lawyer who is engaging in unnecessary litigation. You want a lawyer who will take the time to sit down with you and explain the process and why a particular strategy is being used. You want a lawyer who will listen to you and keep your best interests at heart.

How can a SRIS Law Group lawyer help you?

First and foremost, we will discuss your case with you. We will explain to you the different options you have and the pros and cons of each option. We do not require clients to come in and sit down and talk with us. Certainly, our clients are welcome to come in and talk with us. However, we understand that clients are very busy and may not have the time to come to the office. Therefore, we allow clients to consult with us by phone first and let the clients decide whether they need to come in and meet with their attorney. To learn more about how a SRIS Law Group lawyer can help you, please call us at 888-437-7747 and speak with a lawyer the same day.

If you are dealing with a case, contact the SRIS Law Group attorneys for help. Our lawyers have been helping clients with cases for many years and are experienced at helping clients solve their problems.

Virginia Testamentary Trustee’s Co-fiduciary Simple Interest Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:30:47 +0000

Compound interest should not have been allowed on portion of profits represented by commission paid to testamentary trustee’s co-fiduciary, but simple interest only, because testamentary trustee made the profits from a sale of his own property.

Virginia Civil Litigation is a vast area of law.

Why should you make sure your Virginia lawyer is an experienced lawyer in this area of Virginia civil litigation?

For one VERY simple reason.

There is no point in paying a Virginia civil lawyer to learn about Virginia contract law, Virginia noncompete law, Virginia foreclosure law, etc on your time.

You need an experienced Virginia civil litigation attorney to assist you with your Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia business litigation, Virginia contracts, etc.

SRIS Law Group Philosophy

How can a SRIS Law Group lawyer help you?

Virginia Buyer Incompetent Land Contract Status quo Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:00:12 +0000

If a buyer of land knew of seller’s incompetency, the incompetent was entitled to set aside the contract without placing buyers in status quo, but if buyer did not know, transaction could be voided only if the buyers could be placed in status quo.

Virginia Civil Litigation is a vast area of law.

Why should you make sure your Virginia lawyer is an experienced lawyer in this area of Virginia civil litigation?

For one VERY simple reason.

There is no point in paying a Virginia civil lawyer to learn about Virginia contract law, Virginia noncompete law, Virginia foreclosure law, etc on your time.

You need an experienced Virginia civil litigation attorney to assist you with your Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia business litigation, Virginia contracts, etc.

SRIS Law Group Philosophy

How can a SRIS Law Group lawyer help you?

Virginia Director’s Resolution Subscription Agreement Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:17:02 +0000

Board of directors did not have the power to cancel stock subscription agreements. Therefore, subscribers were required to pay for subscribed shares despite board of directors’ resolution cancelling the subscription.

Virginia Civil Litigation is a vast area of law.

Why should you make sure your Virginia lawyer is an experienced lawyer in this area of Virginia civil litigation?

For one VERY simple reason.

There is no point in paying a Virginia civil lawyer to learn about Virginia contract law, Virginia noncompete law, Virginia foreclosure law, etc on your time.

You need an experienced Virginia civil litigation attorney to assist you with your Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia business litigation, Virginia contracts, etc.

SRIS Law Group Philosophy

How can a SRIS Law Group lawyer help you?

Virginia Real Estate Contract Voidable Parties Obligation Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:16:11 +0000

Buyers did not have right to void real estate contract under statute that rendered voidable a contract that did not require completed performance within two years because the parties were bound to fulfill their obligations within a reasonable period.

Virginia Civil Litigation is a vast area of law.

Why should you make sure your Virginia lawyer is an experienced lawyer in this area of Virginia civil litigation?

For one VERY simple reason.

There is no point in paying a Virginia civil lawyer to learn about Virginia contract law, Virginia noncompete law, Virginia foreclosure law, etc on your time.

You need an experienced Virginia civil litigation attorney to assist you with your Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia business litigation, Virginia contracts, etc.

SRIS Law Group Philosophy

How can a SRIS Law Group lawyer help you?

Virginia Civil Litigation Contract Drunk Void Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:15:42 +0000

A contract for the exchange of land was void where the first party to the contract got the second party to the contract drunk and induced the second party to sign the contract while drunk.

Virginia Civil Litigation is a vast area of law.

Why should you make sure your Virginia lawyer is an experienced lawyer in this area of Virginia civil litigation?

For one VERY simple reason.

There is no point in paying a Virginia civil lawyer to learn about Virginia contract law, Virginia noncompete law, Virginia foreclosure law, etc on your time.

You need an experienced Virginia civil litigation attorney to assist you with your Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia business litigation, Virginia contracts, etc.

SRIS Law Group Philosophy

How can a SRIS Law Group lawyer help you?

Virginia Creditor’s Right Fraud Voidable Agreement Rescind Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:15:10 +0000

In creditors’ rights dispute, creditor’s signature on subordination agreement obtained by fraud was voidable and third party beneficiary to the agreement took its interests under the agreement subject to the creditor’s right to rescind.

Virginia Civil Litigation is a vast area of law.

Why should you make sure your Virginia lawyer is an experienced lawyer in this area of Virginia civil litigation?

For one VERY simple reason.

There is no point in paying a Virginia civil lawyer to learn about Virginia contract law, Virginia noncompete law, Virginia foreclosure law, etc on your time.

You need an experienced Virginia civil litigation attorney to assist you with your Virginia commercial litigation, Virginia business litigation, Virginia contracts, etc.

SRIS Law Group Philosophy

How can a SRIS Law Group lawyer help you?

Maryland Covenant Not-compete Liquidation Damages Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:46:05 +0000

MARYLAND CASE FOR NON COMPETE

FACTS:

The former employee went to work for a competitor. Sometime during his employment with the employer, the employer presented a confidentiality and covenant not to compete agreement, which prohibited the former employee from working for a competing business within a 75-mile radius of the employer’s principal place of business for one year after leaving, subject to a liquidated damages provision of $ 50,000 in the event of a breach. The employer paid $ 50 to the former employee for signing the agreement. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded the employer nominal damages of one dollar, rejecting the employer’s argument that it was entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the terms of agreement. Appellant employer challenged the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Maryland) in favor of appellee, a former employee. The employer had filed a breach of contract action against the former employee, seeking to recover liquidated damages based upon the terms of an employment contract.

ISSUES:

The issue here is whether the circuit court erred in failing to uphold the entire contract, duty of confidentiality and covenant not to compete, where the court found that the contract was valid, and that the Appellee had breached the noncompetition clause of the agreement, but rejected the agreed upon liquidated damage.

DISCUSSION:

Liquidated damage is defined as a specific sum of money expressly stipulated by the parties to a contract as the amount of damages to be recovered by either party for a breach of the agreement by the other. A liquidated damage clause is within the substantive law of contracts, and if not a penalty, is an enforceable provision as a sum agreed upon by the parties to be paid in the event of a breach, enforceable as any other provision or valid promise in the contract. The nomenclature used by the parties, although a circumstance, is not determinative in passing upon whether or not the payment of the designated sum is in fact a penalty. The decisive element is the intention of the parties, whether they intended that the sum be a penalty or an agreed-upon amount as damages in case of a breach, and that is to be gleaned from the subject matter, the language of the contract, and the circumstances surrounding its execution. If the sum agreed upon in a liquidated damages provision is a reasonable forecast of the just and fair compensation for the harm that would result by a breach of the contract and the resultant injury is difficult to estimate accurately or actual damages could not be easily ascertained, such a clause has been held enforceable as liquidated damages. One basis for deeming a stipulated damages provision unreasonable is if damages are so excessive as to demonstrate an inference of unfairness in bargaining. The specific context of a covenant not to compete presents a factual scenario in which stipulated damage provisions are generally enforceable, given that quantifying the amount of damages in such cases may be an elusive prospect. Stipulated damages provisions for breaches of covenants not to compete are in general analyzed by application of the principles under which enforceability of such provisions is generally determined, as a result of which provisions applicable to situations in which the potential damages are not uncertain or difficult to estimate, provisions intended to punish rather than compensate, and provisions the enforcement of which results in the awarding of damages which are disproportionate to the reasonably estimated or actual damages suffered by the party seeking to invoke the provision are unenforceable. It is clear from the facts that the clause itself was an agreement based upon inequalities of bargaining power. The lack of true arms-length dealing between the employer and the employees, including appellee, militates against a finding of reasonableness. Moreover, the employer presented no evidence of actual damages resulting from employee’s breach and resulting employment with rival company. The Court concluded that the stipulated damages clause in the restrictive covenant violates the compensatory nature of contract damages. Thus, the stipulated damages provision is unreasonable and unenforceable as a penalty.

JUDGMENT:

The court also concluded that the contract provision bore no rational relationship to the expected loss from a breach. The court affirmed the judgment.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Virginia Campbell County Breached Covenant Not-compete Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:44:08 +0000

VIRGINIA CASE FOR NON COMPETE

FACTS:

A corporation filed its amended motion for judgment against a doctor, alleging that the doctor, the corporation’s former employee, breached a covenant not to compete. After the Circuit Court of Campbell County (Virginia) denied the doctor’s motion to dismiss, and following a bench trial, a judgment was entered in favor of the corporation. The doctor appealed. He asserted that the former corporation cannot “engage in the practice of medicine” in Virginia because it does not have a license to practice medicine in this Commonwealth. As a consequence, he contends that the former corporation does not have a legitimate business interest in enforcing the covenant not to compete.

ISSUES:

The issue here is whether the corporation, which is not a professional corporation, has a legitimate business interest in enforcing a covenant not to compete with its former employee, a licensed physician.

DISCUSSION:

When the parties executed the employment agreement, the corporation was a professional corporation, and its sole director and shareholder was a physician. The employment agreement contained a non compete provision. Later, the corporation converted from a professional corporation to a non-professional corporation by operation of law upon the physician’s death. The doctor asserted that the corporation was not permitted to “engage in the practice of medicine” in Virginia because it did not have a license to practice medicine in Virginia. A covenant not to compete between an employer and an employee will be enforced if the covenant is narrowly written to protect the employer’s legitimate business interest, is not unduly burdensome on the employee’s ability to earn a living, and does not violate public policy. Restrictive covenants are disfavored restraints on trade and, therefore, the employer bears the burden of proof and any ambiguities in the contract will be construed in favor of the employee. Each non-competition agreement must be evaluated on its own merits, balancing the provisions of the contract with the circumstances of the businesses and employees involved. The Court first considered whether the Family Care Center, a non-professional corporation, may lawfully engage in the practice of medicine in Virginia, as set forth in the employment agreement. A non-professional corporation cannot engage in the practice of medicine in Virginia. It is unlawful for a corporation to practice a profession or occupation without holding a valid license as required by statute or regulation. Specific terms of the employment agreement states, in part, that Family Care Center “is presently engaged in the practice of medicine.” Family Care Center could not and cannot do so because it does not have a license to practice medicine from the Board of Medicine as required by Code §§ 54.1-2902 and -2929. Therefore, the Court held that the Family Care Center, which cannot practice medicine, cannot engage in a competing practice of medicine with Dr. Parikh, who is a physician licensed to practice medicine in this Commonwealth. Since the Family Care Center cannot lawfully engage in the practice of medicine, it has no legitimate business interest in enforcing the covenant not to compete with Dr. Parikh.

JUDGMENT:

The judgment was reversed and final judgment was entered in favor of the doctor.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Maryland Montgomery County Contract Breach foreseeable Damage Lawyers Attorneys

asris — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:31:24 +0000

MARYLAND CASE FOR CONTRACT LITIGATION

Facts:

Mr. Stone, the appellant, purchased a home in Washington, D.C. for $ 285,000. James E. Savitz and his law firm were employed by Stone to handle the settlement of that purchase, including the examination of the title of the property for marketability, document preparation, the release of any liens encumbering the property, and obtaining a title insurance policy. Mr. Stone applied to Maryland National Bank for a home equity loan in the amount of $ 50,000 to purchase “stock puts” to protect his financial position in the stock market in response to anticipated margin calls on certain stocks he had purchased on credit. The bank notified Stone that a deed of trust which encumbered his seller’s title had not been released of record. Between July 18 and August 2, Stone and representatives of Maryland National Bank and its title company made numerous attempts to contact Savitz or someone else at his law firm to get the deed of trust which was recorded against his home released. Meanwhile, on August 1, 1990, Stone’s broker called his margin account loans with an August 9, 1990 pay-off date. Without the home equity loan funds, Stone was forced to sell stock at a substantial loss to meet his broker’s demand. Stone filed suit in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County against the appellees, alleging negligence and breach of contract by Savitz and his firm and breach of contract by Chicago Title.

Issue:

Whether Savitz’s failure to timely record the release of the deed of trust which encumbered the home which Stone purchased, leading to the delay in settlement of Stone’s subsequent loan, was a proximate cause of Stone’s loss?

Discussion:

This Court adopted the foreseeable damages rule applicable to contract actions from Hadley v. Baxendale. There was no allegation in the amended complaint that Savitz or his firm had knowledge at any time that Stone was buying stock on margin. No reasonable person would have foreseen that almost a year after the settlement which Savitz conducted Stone would have an emergency need for cash, would attempt to borrow against his home to satisfy that need, and unable to do so would have to sell stock in a depressed market to raise it. Furthermore, there is no allegation that Savitz was notified of Stone’s financial crisis at the time the problem was brought to his attention. The result might be different if Stone had informed Savitz at the settlement, or when notifying Savitz of the outstanding lien against his home, that he was an active player in the stock market, that he had purchased stock on margin, and that one of the purposes for purchasing the house was to have a ready source of collateral should he have to raise cash to meet a margin call to avoid the need to sell stock in a weak market.
Alternatively, under a contract analysis, these damages would not be foreseeable within the scope of the attorney-client relationship because of Stone’s failure to inform Savitz of these special conditions and terms. In the instant case the contract was for Savitz to examine the title and file the necessary documents to deliver clear title for the property to Stone. While Savitz concedes he failed to record timely a release of a satisfied deed of trust, that breach of his contract with Stone has now been cured. Accordingly the court found that the appellant’s stock market damages were a highly extraordinary result of appellee attorney’s failure to timely record a release, but held there was no acceptable nexus between appellees negligent conduct and stock market losses suffered by appellant. Thus, it held appellees’ negligence was not the proximate cause of the harm that befell appellant.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content