“Circuit court litigation comes at a price, sometimes a heavy price.”
Does your contract include an attorneys fees provision? Does it include words like “reasonable” or “prevailing party?” If so, then the prevailing party may be reimbursed for its “reasonable” attorneys fees expended in the litigation or arbitration process.
On April 13, 2017, the Virginia Supreme Court held the trial court of the City of Virginia Beach abused its discretion when the plaintiff recovered the entire amount it sought from the defendant ($500), but defendant only had to pay $375 out of the $9,568.50 total attorneys fees expended to reach the judgment.
Under Virginia law, a Court or tribunal (e.g., arbitrator or arbitration panel) will typically consider at least seven different factors to determine how much is “reasonable.” Determining a reasonable amount is not a simple ratio calculation nor can it be predicted with certainty. The Court stated “merely applying a ratio between the damages actually awarded and damages originally sought will not satisfy the reasonableness inquiry.”
The Court also cautioned that parties should be careful not to overinflate their damages as “an unreasonably exaggerated claim for damages provokes a proportional response.” “This unnecessarily inflates the costs of litigation for both sides and increases the possibility that one will end up liable to the other for an exorbitant award of attorney’s fees.”
Lambert v. Sea Oats Condominium Association, Inc., Record No. 160269 (April 13, 2017).
Roads & Bridges | Good Faith and Fair Dealing
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING | How Do You Prove a Party Has Failed to Act Based Upon an Ulterior Motive?
The duty […]
Roads & Bridges | Not Another Notice Story
NOT ANOTHER NOTICE STORY| This Defensive Argument Seems to be on the Rise
AS I CONSIDERED the subject matter for this column, I […]
Roads & Bridges | All According to Plan
ALL ACCORDING TO PLAN | Exact Measurements Go a Long Way
In December 2013, a contractor agreed to replace four bridges for the […]
Roads & Bridges | Connecting the Dots
CONNECTING THE DOTS | Showing Causation in Contracting Cases is Critical
In this asphalt case, the prime contractor agreed to perform a $13 […]
Roads & Bridges | Liquidated Damages
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES | Penalties and What is Unenforceable
Liquidated damages typically flow from delays, but they are not always solidly enforced.
In June 2017, […]
Roads& Bridges | Warranty Provisions
WARRANTY PROVISIONS | Contracts must be interpreted thoroughly to avoid absurd results
You are responsible for things within your control. Be careful if […]
Roads& Bridges | The Agreed Price
THE AGREED PRICE | This case stands as a warning about pay-if-paid clause
History cannot be rewritten and a bad, but legal, […]
Roads& Bridges | Confusing Waters
CONFUSING WATERS | A Supreme Court ruling leaves room for ambiguity
What happens when there may be a “significant nexus” between “adjacent” and/or […]
Roads & Bridges | Authority Defined
AUTHORITY DEFINED | The Law of Agency is Important to Understand
For any project, this Russian proverb is helpful: Doveryay, no proveryay – […]
