Handed down a year ago, the decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Benitez was one of the top legal news stories in 2007. In Benitez, the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld a $2,000 sanction against a defense attorney who, after discovery and a nonsuit in a products liability case, continued to press affirmative defenses with no basis in fact or law.
The case left a lot of lawyers feeling like they were going to be poised between a waiver and a sanction, fearful of forfeiting an unpleaded claim or defense on the one hand, but afraid of sanctions for doubtful claims or defenses, on the other.
The balancing act continues.
The Benitez case was topic number one yesterday at the circuit court session of the Henrico County Bar Association Bench-Bar Conference at the courthouse.
The Henrico County bench thinks there may be Benitez-based sanctions motions on the horizon.
“I haven’t had one yet, but I can see it coming,” said Judge Al Harris. Both Harris and Judge Catherine Hammond said the nonsuit in Benitez was significant, but they also pointed to the mandatory language in Virginia’s sanctions statute, Va. Code § 8.01-271.1.
“Once the motion comes before the court, if the moving party establishes the failure to have a factual basis or legal basis, the court doesn’t have any choice,” Hammond said.
“The Supreme Court is very clear, it’s a ‘shall’ situation,” Harris said.
Judges on the panel said possible sanctions scenarios could include a contributory negligence defense asserted against a passenger injured in a car crash (a la Benitez), or a plaintiff’s request for punitive damages in a contract case, or a request for attorney’s fees and costs in a tort suit.
“The Supreme Court is placing a great burden on counsel to plead and develop the case,” said Judge Burnett Miller.
Several judges agreed that if pleadings are limited, lawyers likely will have more latitude in discovery.
The general district court session dealt primarily with collections work and the need for lawyers to clean up their cases ahead of time in order to streamline presentations in court.
But one GDC judge couldn’t resist getting in a dig on civil remedial fees.
General District Court Judge Neil Steverson said it was “good to see the circuit court judges over here getting CLE hours, since we were the ones who said civil remedial fees were wrong, and now the General Assembly is agreeing.”
Showing posts with label Henrico County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Henrico County. Show all posts
Friday, February 1, 2008
Monday, August 13, 2007
Henrico Circuit judge upholds civil remedial fees
In Commonwealth v. Price, an opinion released this afternoon, Henrico County Circuit Judge L.A. Harris Jr. upheld the civil remedial fees for “dangerous drivers” under Virginia Code § 46.2-206.1.
Defendant Anthony O. Price argued the fees are unconstitutional, in that they are levied against Virginia drivers, but not against drivers from other states traveling through Virginia and charged with the same offenses.
Earlier, General District Judge Archer L. Yeatts III convicted Price on a fifth offense of driving on a suspended license but refused to impose the extra $750 in civil fees because the judge said the statute violated equal protection principles.
But Harris found the statute bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose
“Clearly, Virginia residents have more of an obligation to finance their own roads, than do non-residents driving through on Virginia’s highways,” Harris wrote in his Aug. 13 opinion.
Harris also said the legislature may have rationally decided to exclude non-residents in this civil remediation fee scheme because “the costs of collecting on a judgment outweighs any benefits with respect to out-of-state motorists.”
The Henrico judge concluded Price had not met his burden to negate “every conceivable basis” to support the legislative classification, and the statute must stand.
Defendant Anthony O. Price argued the fees are unconstitutional, in that they are levied against Virginia drivers, but not against drivers from other states traveling through Virginia and charged with the same offenses.
Earlier, General District Judge Archer L. Yeatts III convicted Price on a fifth offense of driving on a suspended license but refused to impose the extra $750 in civil fees because the judge said the statute violated equal protection principles.
But Harris found the statute bears a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose
“Clearly, Virginia residents have more of an obligation to finance their own roads, than do non-residents driving through on Virginia’s highways,” Harris wrote in his Aug. 13 opinion.
Harris also said the legislature may have rationally decided to exclude non-residents in this civil remediation fee scheme because “the costs of collecting on a judgment outweighs any benefits with respect to out-of-state motorists.”
The Henrico judge concluded Price had not met his burden to negate “every conceivable basis” to support the legislative classification, and the statute must stand.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Civil fees ruling due next week
The first circuit judge to consider the constitutionality of Virginia’s civil remedial fees said he hopes to rule next week.
Henrico Judge L.A. Harris Jr. heard brief arguments today from prosecutor Duncan P. Reid and from defense attorney Craig S. Cooley, who is representing Anthony O. Price along with Esther J. Windmueller.
General District Judge Archer L. Yeatts III convicted Price last week of a fifth offense of driving on a suspended license but refused to impose $750 in civil fees because he found them unconstitutional.
Yeatts said he could conceive of no rational basis for applying the fees to Virginia residents but not to out-of-state drivers in light of the legislative purpose set forth in Virginia Code § 46.2-206.1: “to generate revenue from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial burdens on the Commonwealth.”
Harris then granted the expedited review required by Code § 16.1-131.1.
He asked Cooley today whether the legislature could have been rational in assuming that residents use state roads more than non-residents and that the state would have a much greater chance of collecting the fees from Virginians.
Cooley responded that there is “no reason to distinguish between an out-of-state and an in-state dangerous driver” in the context of providing money for transportation.
Henrico Judge L.A. Harris Jr. heard brief arguments today from prosecutor Duncan P. Reid and from defense attorney Craig S. Cooley, who is representing Anthony O. Price along with Esther J. Windmueller.
General District Judge Archer L. Yeatts III convicted Price last week of a fifth offense of driving on a suspended license but refused to impose $750 in civil fees because he found them unconstitutional.
Yeatts said he could conceive of no rational basis for applying the fees to Virginia residents but not to out-of-state drivers in light of the legislative purpose set forth in Virginia Code § 46.2-206.1: “to generate revenue from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial burdens on the Commonwealth.”
Harris then granted the expedited review required by Code § 16.1-131.1.
He asked Cooley today whether the legislature could have been rational in assuming that residents use state roads more than non-residents and that the state would have a much greater chance of collecting the fees from Virginians.
Cooley responded that there is “no reason to distinguish between an out-of-state and an in-state dangerous driver” in the context of providing money for transportation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
