0349252
Va. Ct. App.Jul 7, 2026Background
- The dispute arose from winding up a partnership among Morley, Trimmer's estate, and Wilson Mechanical, with escrowed funds to be distributed after accounting for partner capital accounts. 1
- The parties stayed the court case and agreed to a binding determination by CPA Barry Strickland under an Engagement Letter that limited him to information furnished through counsel and said the process would be imperfect. 2
- A separate January 2024 Arbitration Agreement was signed by Morley and Trimmer but not Wilson Mechanical, and the circuit court later held it unenforceable against Wilson Mechanical. 3
- Strickland issued a preliminary analysis soon after receiving Wilson Mechanical's signed Engagement Letter and later issued a final award in February 2024. 4
- The circuit court first indicated it would vacate the award, then on reconsideration confirmed it, awarding costs and prejudgment interest; Wilson Mechanical appealed. 5
- The Court of Appeals affirmed confirmation and costs but remanded only for the circuit court to consider prejudgment interest. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Strickland committed statutory misconduct 7 | Wilson Mechanical said Strickland rushed, failed to review records, and used cursory reasoning. | Morley said the Engagement Letter allowed an imperfect, document-limited process. | No misconduct prejudicing Wilson Mechanical's rights was proved. 8 |
| Whether Strickland exceeded his powers 9 | Wilson Mechanical said Strickland violated the Engagement Letter's required accounting process. | Morley said Strickland decided the exact dispute submitted to him. | No egregious departure from conferred powers was shown. 10 |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by reconsidering 11 | Wilson Mechanical said reconsideration was improper absent new evidence or changed law. | Morley said the court could correct its legal error before final judgment. | Reconsideration was proper and not an abuse of discretion. 12 |
| Whether costs and prejudgment interest were properly awarded 13 | Wilson Mechanical said costs lacked evidentiary support and interest was unexplained. | Morley said costs were statutorily authorized and interest accrued from the final award. | Costs affirmed; prejudgment interest remanded for explanation. 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. MJM Golf, LLC, 86 Va. App. 663 (Va. Ct. App. 2026) (courts decide cases on the best and narrowest grounds 15)
- Alexandria Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Walker, 290 Va. 150 (Va. 2015) (best and narrowest grounds principle 16)
- Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392 (Va. 2020) (narrowest-ground reasoning 17)
- Meuse v. Henry, 296 Va. 164 (Va. 2018) (party attacking award bears burden to prove invalidity 18)
- TM Delmarva Power, LLC v. NCP of Va., LLC, 263 Va. 116 (Va. 2002) (VUAA favors arbitration and validity of arbitration agreements 19)
- Cotton Creek Circles, LLC v. San Luis Valley Water Co., 279 Va. 320 (Va. 2010) (judicial review of arbitration awards is among the narrowest known to law 20)
- BBF, Inc. v. Alstom Power, Inc., 274 Va. 326 (Va. 2007) (courts do not vacate for mere factual or legal error; powers inquiry is limited 21)
- Trs. of Asbury United Methodist Church v. Taylor & Parrish, Inc., 249 Va. 144 (Va. 1995) (arbitrators exceed powers when they act beyond the contract 22)
- Hechler Chevrolet Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 230 Va. 396 (Va. 1985) (trial courts may reconsider rulings in their discretion 23)
- City of Charlottesville v. Regulus Books, LLC, 301 Va. 170 (Va. 2022) (costs and prejudgment-interest awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion 24)