2011 Va. Cir. LEXIS 221
Hanover Cir. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff sued Defendant in Hanover Circuit Court (2008) for breach of written and oral contracts, conversion, unjust enrichment, and interference with contract expectancy, seeking damages and punitive damages plus equitable relief on unjust enrichment.
- Defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract seeking $37,491.72, costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
- Claims were bifurcated to separate unjust enrichment contingent on conversion; trial from January 6–13, 2011, with certain claims struck prior to and during trial.
- Concession relationship involved a Kings Dominion park Kiosk; dispute centered on withholding revenue shortfalls and Defendant’s alleged duties to maintain Plaintiff’s revenue locations.
- Jury found Plaintiff liable on the conversion claim for $96,000 with interest from February 1, 2006, and found Defendant liable on the Counterclaim for $37,491.52.
- Pre- and post-trial motions followed: Defendant moved to set aside the verdict and strike the unjust enrichment claim; court addressed the consistency of verdict and valuation evidence, and allowed unjust enrichment to proceed with limited disgorgement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verdict consistency | Plaintiff argues verdict is coherent and supported by evidence; no inconsistency under the given instructions. | Defendant contends verdict is internally inconsistent and contrary to law/evidence because interest and basis for conversion cannot align with bailment/withholding findings. | Verdict not plainly wrong; verdict consistent with instructions and evidence; motion denied. |
| Valuation evidence admissibility (Reed/King) | Reed’s lay opinion on value is admissible as owner; valuation supported by multiple factors. | Reed lacked proper expert disclosure; King’s 2009 valuation was improperly admitted; weight rather than admissibility concerns. | Reed’s testimony admissible; King’s testimony properly excluded; no reversal of verdict. |
| Unjust enrichment claim | Unjust enrichment is a permissible claim; disgorgement of all profits should be allowed per applicable precedent. | Unjust enrichment should be limited to the value of the benefit conferred; disgorgement of all profits not permitted; title transfers affect post-conversion use. | Unjust enrichment claim allowed to proceed; disgorgement limited; equity does not support disgorgement of all profits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane v. Scott, 220 Va. 578 (Va. 1979) (jury verdict review: credibility and weight limits on trial judge)
- Commonwealth v. McNeely, 204 Va. 218 (Va. 1963) (standard for reviewing jury verdicts)
- Shalimar Dev., Inc. v. FDIC, 257 Va. 565 (Va. 1999) (read the instructions as a whole; consider conflicts)
- SuperValu, Inc. v. Johnson, 276 Va. 356 (Va. 2008) (read instructions together; valuation and credibility considerations)
- Haynes v. Glenn, 197 Va. 746 (Va. 1956) (owner’s testimony on value admissible for damages)
- White Consolidated Industry, Inc. v. Swiney, 237 Va. 23 (Va. 1989) (depreciation/market value required for damages; not solely original cost)
- Kern v. Freed Co., 224 Va. 678 (Va. 1983) (unjust enrichment doctrine; equitable relief considerations)
- Straley v. Fisher, 176 Va. 163 (Va. 1940) (damages measure on conversion: value at time/place of conversion)
- T & M Elec., Inc. v. Prologis Trust, 70 Va. Cir. 403 (Va. 2006) (unjust enrichment elements; cited for its framework)