Opinion ID: 1058461
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriateness of Declaratory Relief

Text: The County also contends that a declaratory judgment was not the proper vehicle for providing relief because the County had already acted and, therefore, the Town's rights, if any, had already accrued. We disagree. The Town sought a declaration of its rights under its written agreements with the County and the dispute presented would not be resolved upon a dispositive factual question. Therefore, declaratory judgment was a proper vehicle for relief. Although this [C]ourt and lower courts have ... given a liberal interpretation to the Declaratory Judgment Act, they have nevertheless recognized that the power to make a declaratory judgment ... will not as a rule [be] exercised where some other mode of proceeding is provided. Bishop, 211 Va. at 421, 177 S.E.2d at 524. Where a declaratory judgment as to a disputed fact would be determinative of issues, rather than a construction of definite stated rights, status, and other relations, commonly expressed in written instruments, the case is not one for declaratory judgment. Williams v. Southern Bank of Norfolk, 203 Va. 657, 663, 125 S.E.2d 803, 807 (1962) (quoting 16 Am.Jur., Declaratory Judgments, § 20 at 294-95). For example, in USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Randolph, 255 Va. 342, 344-45, 497 S.E.2d 744, 745 (1998), an employee filed a declaratory judgment action to determine whether the Virginia Workers' Compensation Act would bar him from instituting a tort action for injuries sustained while he was at his place of employment. We held that declaratory judgment was inappropriate because the case [did] not involve a determination of rights, but only involve[d] a disputed issue to be determined in future litigation between the parties, namely, whether [the employee's] injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. Id. at 347, 497 S.E.2d at 747. Similarly, in Green v. Goodman-Gable-Gould Co., Inc., 268 Va. 102, 108, 597 S.E.2d 77, 81 (2004), Goodman-Gable-Gould filed a declaratory judgment action to determine whether it had substantially performed its obligations under [its] contract with [Green] when Green requested Goodman-Gable-Gould withdraw from adjusting Green's fire loss claim. 268 Va. at 108, 597 S.E.2d at 81. We held declaratory relief was inappropriate because Goodman-Gable-Gould's actual objective in the ... proceeding was a determination of that disputed issue rather than an adjudication of the parties' rights, an issue which should have been litigated in the context of a breach of contract claim. Id. In contrast, rather than a determination of a disputed factual issue, the Town sought a declaration of its rights under its written agreements with the County. Therefore, this was a classic case where declaratory judgment [was] appropriate to `guide parties in their future conduct in relation to each other.' Reisen v. Aetna Life and Cas. Co., 225 Va. 327, 335, 302 S.E.2d 529, 533 (1983) (quoting Bishop, 211 Va. at 421, 177 S.E.2d at 524). The trial court did not err by deciding the question.