Sheehy v. Williams
299 Va. 274
Va.2020Background
- The circuit court entered a final monetary judgment against Kerry Ann Sheehy on May 24, 2019 for $50,845.18; Sheehy filed two consolidated appeals challenging liability, damages, fees, and costs.
- In July 2020 Sheehy contracted to sell real property; a title search revealed the judgment and the closing required the judgment lien be cleared to convey "clean title."
- The buyer’s/closing attorney requested payoff information from Williams’s counsel; Williams’s counsel sent a payoff letter and then received a check dated August 14 from the buyer’s attorney’s escrow account for the exact payoff amount, memoed "Judgment Payoff."
- The check was accompanied by Williams’s payoff letter with the balance circled and, according to Williams’s counsel, Sheehy’s initials beside the circled amount; Williams’s counsel says he filed a satisfaction of judgment thereafter.
- Sheehy contends she did not authorize the payment and was not involved in the real estate transaction; Williams moves to dismiss the appeal as moot under the voluntary-payment doctrine because the judgment was paid.
- The Virginia Supreme Court declined to dismiss immediately; it temporarily remanded to the trial court for specific factual findings on whether the payment was voluntary/authorized and held the appeal in abeyance pending those findings.
Issues
| Issue | Williams's Argument | Sheehy's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether satisfaction of the judgment during appeal moots/destroys right to appeal under voluntary-payment doctrine | Payment of the judgment (to clear title) was voluntary and therefore bars Sheehy’s right to appeal | Payment was not made by or on behalf of Sheehy and thus was not a voluntary payment by the judgment debtor | Virginia law: voluntary payment of a judgment normally deprives payor of appeal rights, but court remanded for factual findings before ruling on mootness |
| Whether Sheehy authorized or consented to the payoff check | Circled payoff letter with Sheehy’s initials and exact payoff amount show knowledge/consent | Sheehy denies authorizing or participating in the closing and disputes authorization | Fact question: remanded to trial court to determine whether Sheehy expressly or impliedly authorized the payment |
| Whether payment was made by buyer/closing attorney as part of closing (reducing seller’s net proceeds) or by Sheehy | Payment was standard closing practice to obtain clear title; typically reduces seller’s net proceeds, implying seller authorization | Payment was made "on behalf of the Buyers," not by Sheehy | Fact question: remanded to determine role of buyer’s/closing attorney, source of funds, and whether net purchase price was reduced |
| Procedural challenge that Sheehy’s first notice was premature and second appeal defective | Williams argued appeal(s) should be dismissed on procedural grounds | Sheehy maintained appeals were timely under Rule 5:9(a) treating a pre-entry notice as filed on entry date | Court denied Williams’s procedural dismissal motion and permitted appeals to proceed to factual remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Crewe Factory Sales Corp., 254 Va. 355 (1997) (establishes that voluntary payment of a judgment deprives the payor of the right to appeal)
- Carlucci v. Duck’s Real Est., Inc., 220 Va. 164 (1979) (payment made after execution/garnishment is not "voluntary" for appeal-bar purposes)
- Vick v. Siegel, 191 Va. 731 (1951) (fraudulent or unlawful compulsion by creditor can render a payment involuntary)
- Williams v. Consolvo, 237 Va. 608 (1989) (mistaken payments to a noteholder treated as voluntary and not recoverable)
- McComb v. McComb, 226 Va. 271 (1983) (distinguishes restitution against a payee from contribution claims among co-obligors)