BROADCASTS.com

b'

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert

\\xa0

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

\\xa0

Granted Appeal Summary

Case

FLINT HILL SCHOOL v. ALESSIA MCINTOSH (Record Number 181678) From The Circuit Court of Fairfax County; D. Bernhard, Judge.

\\xa0

Counsel

Timothy B. Hyland, Elizabeth A. Dwyer, Tyler Southwick (HYLAND LAW PLLC) for appellant. Harris D. Butler, III (BUTLER ROYALS, PLC), Cyrus Mehri (MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC) for appellee.

\\xa0

Assignments of Error

\\xa0

1. The trial court erred in holding that Roger McIntosh, a co-obligee under the parties\\u2019 contract, was not a necessary party to Alessia McIntosh\\u2019s declaratory judgment action against Flint Hill School.

\\xa0

2. The trial court erred in holding that the filing of a declaratory judgment action \\u201ctrigger[s] the applicability of a contract clause sought to be declared unlawful,\\u201d as such holding is contrary to law as set forth, inter alia, in Martin v. Garner, 286 Va. 76, 84, 745 S.E.2d 419, 423 (2013) (holding that the fact that the relevant parties \\u201cwere before the court and the relevant deeds were in evidence,\\u201d is insufficient to establish a justiciable controversy between the parties.).

\\xa0

3. The trial court erred in overruling Flint Hill School\\u2019s demurrer to Alessia McIntosh\\u2019s declaratory judgment claim, because the complaint did not contain an allegation that there existed an actual or justiciable controversy, nor an actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right, and because the complaint sought relief as to a hypothetical and speculative claim.

\\xa0

4. The trial court erred in overruling Flint Hill School\\u2019s plea in bar to Alessia McIntosh\\u2019s declaratory judgment claim, because the uncontroverted evidence presented to the trial court established that there was no actual or justiciable controversy, nor an actual 2 antagonistic assertion and denial of right, and because Alessia McIntosh sought relief as to a hypothetical and speculative claim.

\\xa0

5. The trial court erred in granting Alessia McIntosh\\u2019s motion for summary judgment, because material facts were genuinely in dispute as to whether there existed an actual or justiciable controversy, and an actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right, and because Alessia McIntosh sought relief as to a hypothetical and speculative claim.

\\xa0

6. The trial court erred in granting Alessia McIntosh\\u2019s motion for summary judgment as to the unenforceability of the attorneys\\u2019 fees clause in the parties\\u2019 contract, because material facts were genuinely in dispute, and the trial court was presented with no facts, as to whether the challenged contractual clause was procedurally unconscionable.

This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.

Real legal help for real people

Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there\\u2019s a problem: The insurance company doesn\\u2019t believe you. \\u201cYou can\\u2019t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you\\u2019re fine.\\u201d

You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don\\u2019t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review.

Get a free consultation