737 S.E.2d 886
Va.2013Background
- Horton challenges trial court ruling that unlawful building permit fees were paid voluntarily under the common-law voluntary payment doctrine.
- BRS proposed revised proffer requiring $8,000 per unit; Board allowed development to connect to Town water/sewer and deleted obligation to construct systems.
- Horton purchased the Blue Ridge Shadows subdivision subject to the revised proffer as amended, and 52 building permits were issued 2006–2010.
- For each permit Horton paid $12,000 (an extra $4,000) as a permit fee based on the hook-up proposal.
- Horton protested the fee and sought a declaratory judgment in 2007; the trial court later ruled Horton was not obligated to pay the fee.
- Horton filed a restitution action in 2008 to recover the fees; the Board asserted the voluntary payment doctrine as a defense; cases were consolidated for bench trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntary payment doctrine bars restitution | Horton paid under protest and without timely legal relief | Board: payments voluntary under doctrine | Voluntary payment doctrine bars restitution |
| Whether there was an immediate and urgent necessity to pay | Horton lacked time to seek legal remedy before paying | No immediate necessity shown to forego legal relief | No urgent necessity established; payments voluntary |
| Whether protest negates voluntariness of payment | Protestations render payment involuntary | Protest alone does not negate voluntariness | Protest did not render payment involuntary |
| Whether equitable restitution is available despite doctrine | Equitable restitution should undo unjust enrichment | Voluntary payment doctrine provides defense to restitution | Doctrine defeats restitution claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrow v. County of Prince Edward, 121 Va. 1 (Va. 1917) (explains voluntariness presumption and protest does not negate voluntariness)
- Town of Phoebus v. Manhattan Social Club, 105 Va. 144 (Va. 1906) (protest of payment does not negate voluntariness)
- Vick v. Siegel, 191 Va. 731 (Va. 1951) (necessity requirement for involuntary payment not met)
- Judah v. Mayor of City of Richmond, 32 Va. (5 Leigh) 305 (Va. 1834) (voluntary payment doctrine historically rooted to promote certainty)
- Williams v. Consolvo, 237 Va. 608 (Va. 1989) (necessity and injunctive relief considerations in voluntary payments)
- City of Richmond v. SunTrust Bank, 283 Va. 439 (Va. 2012) (deference to trial court findings; de novo review of law)