subject: Breach Of Contract Virginia Business Litigation Lawyers Cause of Action Corporation Maryland [print this page] Breach Of Contract Virginia Business Litigation Lawyers Cause of Action Corporation Maryland
UNITED LEASING CORPORATION v. THE LEHNER FAMILY BUSINESS TRUST
Record No. 090254
SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA
279 Va. 510
Following a trial by jury, the circuit court entered judgment on the jury's verdict in favor of the Trust for $ 1.1 million. United Leasing subsequently filed a "Motion to Reconsider, Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict or, Alternately, Motion to Set Aside Verdict and For New Trial." The circuit court also denied United Leasing's post-trial motions. United Leasing's appeal to this Court followed.
Whether the circuit court erred in denial of motion to strike the Trust's evidence, contending that the evidence does not establish that Hugo had authority to assign Garcia's breach of contract claim to the Trust?
The Trust argues that United Leasing is procedurally barred from asserting any argument regarding the validity of the assignment, because it did not renew its motion to strike.
United Leasing responds that once it informed the circuit court of its assignment argument, its objection was preserved in the absence of an affirmative showing in the record that it abandoned that objection or demonstrated by its conduct the intent to abandon the objection. United Leasing asserts that it never withdrew or abandoned Hugo's lack of authority as a ground for the motion to strike. United Leasing further contends that the renewal of its motion was unqualified, and therefore encompassed all arguments made in support of its original motion to strike.
Specifically, United Leasing maintains that the Trust's argument turns Code 8.01-384 on its head and that the Trust would have this Court construe an unqualified renewal of a motion as a waiver of previously stated arguments. Rather than require an express withdrawal of an argument, such construction would affirmatively require a party to repeat arguments previously made to the trial court, in contravention of the statute's command.
The Court held that the United Leasing failed to preserve its objection concerning the validity of the assignment. United Leasing's failure to preserve its objection is dispositive of this appeal. United Leasing demonstrated the intent to abandon its argument regarding the validity of the assignment when it failed to clearly renew its motion to strike on that basis at the conclusion of all the evidence. United Leasing did not satisfy the requirements of Virginia Code 8.01-384(A), because it failed to make known to the circuit court that the validity of the assignment was grounds for its renewed motion to strike based upon all of the evidence presentedat the trial. Therefore, United Leasing cannot obtain appellate review of its assignment of error regarding an issue not preserved in the court below. Rule 5:25."
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.
