Forest Lakes Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. United Land Corp. of Am.
293 Va. 113
| Va. | 2017Background
- Hollymead Town Center (HTC) constructed three permanent sediment basins by fall 2004; Powell Creek flows from HTC into Lake Hollymead, jointly owned by two POAs.
- POAs complained beginning in 2003–2005 about sedimentation from HTC into Powell Creek and Lake Hollymead; county-approved basins complied with regulations that anticipate ~40% discharge.
- POAs waited until 2011 to sue HTC developers/owners for trespass and nuisance seeking damages and injunctive relief for ongoing sediment deposits.
- HTC defendants raised pleas in bar asserting Code § 8.01-243(B)’s five-year limitations period; circuit court held an ore tenus hearing and found the discharge was continuous from about 2004.
- Trial court sustained the pleas in bar, concluding the POAs’ damage claims accrued when continuous discharge began and were therefore time-barred; court also rejected the POAs’ continuing-trespass rule as defeating the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the five-year limitations period accrue for trespass/injury to property? | Accrual should reset for each discrete sediment episode; alternatively, statute shouldn’t run while deposits remain (continuing trespass). | Accrual occurred when permanent basins began continuously discharging (by fall 2004), so claim filed in 2011 is time-barred. | Accrual occurred when continuous discharge began; POAs’ damage claims barred by five-year statute. |
| Does a continuing trespass (unremoved deposits) postpone or prevent accrual under Va. law? | Restatement approach: continuing trespass means limitations run until trespass stops (i.e., until removal). | Statute governs accrual; Virginia precedent treats continuous, indefinite injuries from permanent structures as accruing at first measurable damage. | Rejected POAs’ broad continuing-trespass rule; statute still runs from first measurable, continuous injury. |
| Were later sediment discharges discrete events restarting limitations? | Later storm-driven releases created new, independent trespasses triggering new limitation periods. | Evidence showed ongoing, function-driven discharge (no episodic bypasses), so later discharges were continuations, not new causes of action. | Court found discharge continuous and not episodic; no new accruals for later events. |
| Did the trial court err by not ruling on POAs’ summary-judgment motion adopting Restatement rule? | Court should adopt Restatement (Second) rule and allow accrual to run until deposits removed. | The summary-judgment motion was not before the court at the plea hearing; the plea in bar resolution was proper. | No reversible error; court properly decided the plea in bar on the facts and did not improperly refuse to rule on an unscheduled motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 279 Va. 566 (appellate deference to ore tenus factfinding)
- Virginia Hot Springs Co. v. McCray, 106 Va. 461 (permanent structure causing continuous pollution accrues at first injury)
- Hampton Roads Sanitation Dist. v. McDonnell, 234 Va. 235 (episodic discharges generate separate accruals)
- Southern Ry. v. McMenamin, 113 Va. 121 (increased later damage does not restart statute when injury is permanent/continuous)
- Norfolk Cty. Water Co. v. Etheridge, 120 Va. 379 (single action for indefinite continuing injury; accrual at first damage)