Kambis v. Considine
290 Va. 460
| Va. | 2015Background
- Mitchell Kambis and April Considine were co-members of Villa Deste, a company that acquired real property; their personal relationship later ended and litigation followed.
- The Kambis parties (Kambis, Elegant Homes, John Rolfe Realty) filed multiple lawsuits against Considine, her mother Patricia Wolfe, and Villa Deste asserting many claims (initially 17, later amended).
- Over several years the trial court dismissed most claims (statute-of-limitations and failure-to-state claims), released an early lis pendens, and denied various motions; Kambis later filed another lis pendens.
- Prior counsel for Kambis withdrew; Kambis proceeded pro se at times, nonsuited/dismissed several claims (including fraud), and sought to vacate the earlier release of lis pendens.
- The Considine parties moved for sanctions under Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 alleging pleadings were not warranted and were intended to harass/intimidate; the trial court awarded substantial fees against Kambis and his former counsel and struck the matter.
- On appeal the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the sanctions, concluding Kambis pursued claims for an improper purpose (intimidation/vindictiveness) and directed the clerk to release the remaining lis pendens in the interest of judicial economy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding sanctions under Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 | Kambis: his fraud claim survived multiple challenges and was grounded in law and fact; no finding he filed pleadings for an improper purpose | Considine: pleadings were used to harass, intimidate, cause delay and increase costs; Kambis knew litigation costs and pursued claims vindictively | No abuse of discretion; sanctions upheld because pleadings were interposed for an improper purpose (intent to intimidate) |
| Whether release of lis pendens issue requires further relief on appeal | Kambis: sought relief to vacate release and reimpose lis pendens | Considine: argued release made the issue moot as properties became unencumbered | Court agreed issue was moot for appeal and, for judicial economy, ordered clerk to release the applicable lis pendens |
Key Cases Cited
- Shebelskie v. Brown, 287 Va. 18 (sets abuse-of-discretion standard for sanctions review)
- Flippo v. CSC Assocs. III, L.L.C., 262 Va. 48 (articulates objective reasonableness inquiry under § 8.01-271.1)
- Oxenham v. Johnson, 241 Va. 281 (purpose of § 8.01-271.1 includes reducing unnecessary litigation)
- Northern Va. Real Estate, Inc. v. Martins, 283 Va. 86 (actions filed for vindictive or malevolent reasons constitute improper purpose)
- Williams & Connolly, LLP v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 273 Va. 498 (failure to meet any conjunctive requirement of § 8.01-271.1 permits sanctions)