loader from loading.io

September 2019 - Janis et al v Trust Company etc et al

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

Release Date: 09/29/2019

January 2020 King v. Commonwealth show art January 2020 King v. Commonwealth

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

  This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   - Granted Appeal Summary Case TALIK R. KING, S/K/A TALIK RASHAUN KING v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190424) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Sante John Piracci (Lee & Piracci, PLC) for appellant. Kenneth A. Blalock (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) for appellee. Assignment of Error The judge could not have found that the Commonwealth proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed a controlled substance where the only evidence linking the...

info_outline
January 2020 Davis Construction v. FTJ, INC show art January 2020 Davis Construction v. FTJ, INC

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   - Granted Appeal Summary Case JAMES G. DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. FTJ, INC., F/K/A CIESCO, INC. (Record Number 190345) From Circuit Court of Arlington County; L. DiMatteo, Judge. Counsel Stephen M. Seeger and Alexandra E. Busch (Peckar & Abramson, PC) for appellant. R. Scott Caulkins and Greta P. Iliev (Caulkins & Bruce, PC) for appellee. Assignments of Error The trial court erred as a matter of law by ruling that there was no consideration for the JCA which governed the payment obligations and expectations of...

info_outline
January 2020 McQuinn v. Commonwealth of Virginia show art January 2020 McQuinn v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   - Granted Appeal Summary Case MARCELLUS MCQUINN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190266) From Court of Appeals of Virginia. Counsel Daniel W. Hall, esq. for appellant. Caitlin Robb Kelly (Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney) for appellee. Assignment of Error The Court of Appeals erred by upholding the trial court, which erred by refusing to grant McQuinn’s motion to set aside the convictions for use of a firearm where McQuinn was acquitted of any predicate offense to support these convictions. The Court of Appeals...

info_outline
January 2020 Hunter v. Hunter show art January 2020 Hunter v. Hunter

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   - Granted Appeal Summary Case CHARLES M. HUNTER, JR. v. ELEANOR A. HUNTER, IN HER CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED THERESA E. HUNTER RECOVABLE LIVING TRUST AGREEMENT, ET AL. (Record Number 190260) From The Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and James City County; M. McGinty, Judge. Counsel William W. Sleeth, III and Brett C. Herbert (Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP) for appellant. Daniel R. Quarles (Otey Smith & Quarles) for appellee. Assignments of Error The Trial Court erred by misreading the...

info_outline
January 2020 Lynch v. Cabell show art January 2020 Lynch v. Cabell

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   - Granted Appeal Summary Case  LESTER B. LYNCH v. BETH CABELL, WARDEN, SUSSEX II STATE PRISON (Record Number 190048) From Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk; J. Migliozzi, Judge. Counsel Edward A. Fiorella, Jr. (Fraim and Fiorella, P.C.) for appellant. Rosemary V. Bourne (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee. Assignments of Error The trial court erred in failing to consider the Petitioner’s initial Post-Trial Brief in its ruling. The trial court erred in considering only Attorney Anderson’s hearing testimony...

info_outline
January 2020 Linda Lee Alexander v. David Cobb show art January 2020 Linda Lee Alexander v. David Cobb

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   - Granted Appeal Summary Case LINDA LEE ALEXANDER v. DAVID COBB (Record Number 181613) From The Circuit Court of Bath County; J.E. Wetsel, Jr., Judge. Counsel Robert J. Test for appellant. Melisa G. Michelsen (Litten & Sipe L.L.P.) for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erred in not granting the Plaintiff/Petitioner’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment, instead ruling that the real property that is the subject matter of this case, belonged to the Defendant/Respondent (a 25% interest) and to the Plaintiff/Petitioner...

info_outline
January 2020 Young-Allen v. Bank of America show art January 2020 Young-Allen v. Bank of America

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   -   Granted Appeal Summary  Case  TAMARA E. YOUNG-ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL. (Record Number 181313) From The Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria; L. Kemler, Judge. Counsel Christopher E. Brown (The Brown Firm, PLLC) for appellant. James Kevin Fee and Patrick Harvey (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP) for appellee. Assignment of Error The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers of Bank of America, N.A. and Equity Trustees as to Counts I and II, holding that this is a post-sale action for...

info_outline
November 2019 - Massenburg v City of Petersburg show art November 2019 - Massenburg v City of Petersburg

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   -   Granted Appeal Summary   Case SAM MASSENBURG, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF COREY D. MASSENBURG, DECEASED v. CITY OF PETERSBURG (Record Number 190071) From The Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg; J. Teefey, Jr., Judge.   Counsel Kevin T. Hadden, Mark S. Lindensmith, and Ryan T. Walker (Marks & Harrison, P.C.) for appellant. Jeremy D. Capps, Melissa Y. York, and George A. Somerville (Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman) for appellee.   Assignments of Error   The Trial Court committed...

info_outline
November 2019 - Yoder v Commonwealth show art November 2019 - Yoder v Commonwealth

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   -   Granted Appeal Summary   Case MICHELLE DAWN YODER v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190047) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia.   Counsel Eric M. Anderson (Office of the Public Defender) for appellant. Rachel L. Yates (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee.   Assignments of Error   The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction because the evidence was insufficient to prove notice of a continuing revocation beyond a reasonable doubt.   The Court of Appeals erred in...

info_outline
November 2019 - Watson-Scott v Commonwealth show art November 2019 - Watson-Scott v Commonwealth

Oral Arguments of the Supreme Court of Virginia

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert   -   Granted Appeal Summary   Case GEORGE T. WATSON SCOTT v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (Record Number 190016) From The Court of Appeals of Virginia.   Counsel Catherine Lawler (Catherine Lawler Attorney at Law, PLLC) for appellant. Rachel L. Yates (Office of the Attorney General) for appellee.   Assignments of Error   The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s murder conviction of appellant where the element of malice was absent because there was no person or persons against whom a...

info_outline
 
More Episodes

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert

 

www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com

 

Granted Appeal Summary

 

Case

 

THOMAS JANIS, ET AL. v. TRUST COMPANY, AS CERTIFICATE TRUSTEE ON BEHALF OF BOSCO CREDIT II TRUST SERIES 2010-1, ET AL. (Record Number 181307)

 

From

 

Circuit Court of Prince George County; W. Tomko, Judge.

 

Counsel

 

Henry W. McLaughlin (The Law Office of Henry McLaughlin, P.C.) for appellant.

 

Daniel K. Eisenhauer for appellee.

 

Assignments of Error

 

1. The Circuit Court of Prince George County, Virginia (“the trial court”) erred in its oral ruling on July 24, 2017 that the claim of the appellants, Thomas Janis and Kimberly O. Janis (“the Janises”) for an injunction based on usury failed because their claim of usury was based on averred improper charges that were de minimus. This was error, even though the trial court noted that injunctions are not to be granted liberally, because of the following:

 

A. The Janises sought an injunction to prevent a foreclosure of their home based on usury in a subsidiary mortgage loan based on Va. Code Ann. Section 6.1-330.72 (“Section 6.1- 330.72”).

 

B. Section 6.1-330.72, at all relevant times, provided what charges are allowed in subsidiary mortgage loans, and stating, in pertinent part (excluding certain charges otherwise allowed by such statute not applicable to this case) “No other charges of any kind shall be imposed on or be payable by the borrower either to the lender or any other party in connection with such loan ....”

 

C. In Garrison v. First Federal Savings and Loan, 402 S.E. 2d 25 (1991) this Court held that any charge not attributable to principal or all allowed charge for collateral services is interest. Therefore, if the lender in this case imposed charges on the Janises that were neither towards principal or allowable collateral charges, such imposed charges were 2 interest and any such interest disallowed by Section 6.1-330.72 constituted disallowed interest and therefore usury.

 

D. The Janises’ complaint (“the complaint”) verified by Kimberly O. Janis under oath, plausibly set forth that the lender imposed on the Janises two usurious charges -one for $1 as an overcharge of the recordation fee and the other for $158 for a claim of payment of a charge owed by the Janises which was tendered but not completed and not refunded to them.

 

E. There is no de minimum [sic] exception to the usury prohibition in Section 6.1-330.72.

 

F. Under the provisions of Va.Code Ann. Section 6.2-304 (“Section 6.2-304”) because the subject loan was usurious, no interest was owed on the loan.

 

G. In their complaint, vertified [sic] by the Janises under oath, because they owed no interest on the subject loan (pursuant to Section 6.2-304) they had satisfied the loan in full because they had paid more than the $26,000 of the principal of the loan.

 

H. Because the Janises had satisfied the loan in full, it was error for the trial court on July 24, 2017 to rule against their plea for an injunction to prevent foreclosure of their home on July 25, 2017.

 

2. The trial court erred in its written order entered on July 25, 2017 denying injunctive relief as to Count One of the complaint. This was error for the reasons set forth in Assignment of Error No.1, in Assignment of Error No.1 [sic], including subsections A thorugh [sic] H of that assignment of error.

 

3. The trial court erred in that part of the final order entered on July 9, 2018 which dismissed the complaint with prejudice. This was error because:

 

A. The final order thereby dismissed that part of the complaint which prayed that the trial court appoint a special commissioner with instruction to mark the deed of trust as satisfied on grounds, avrred [sic] in the complaint, that (a) the loan was usurious; (b) as a result of such usury, no interest was due on the subject mortgage loan; and (c) with interest removed, the Janises had paid the loan in full.

 

B. The final order thereby dismissed that part of the complaint which sought a declaratory judgment that the Janises were not responsible for the lender’s foreclosure costs related to scheduling a foreclosure for July 25, 2017.

 

C. The loan was usurious because the lender imposed on the Janises as to the secondary mortgage loan at issue in this case a $1 charge claimed for a recordation charge paid to the clerk’s office but not actually so paid and not among the charges for a secondary mortgage oan [sic] under the provisions of Section 6.1-330.72. 3

 

D. The loan was also usurious because the lender imposed a $158 charge for a claim of payment of an amount owed by the Janises which was tendered but not completed and not refunded to them.

 

E. Because the loan was usurious, pursuant to Section 6.2-304 no interest was due on the subject loan.

 

F. Because no interest was due on the subject loan, the Janises had paid the loan in full.

 

G. Because the loan was paid in full, the Janises were entitled to have the deed of trust marked as satisfied.

 

Source Document: http://www.courts.state.va.us/courts/scv/appeals/181307.pdf