Opinion ID: 1058200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hart's Assignment of Cross-Error

Text: On brief to this Court, Johnson argues that Hart waived his objection to the trial court's holding that Johnson was a beneficial owner pursuant to Code § 8.01-13 when counsel for Hart endorsed the trial court's order [s]een and consented to. This argument misapprehends the language of Code § 8.01-384, which provides in pertinent part: No party, after having made an objection or motion known to the court, shall be required to make such objection or motion again in order to preserve his right to appeal, challenge, or move for reconsideration of, a ruling, order, or action of the court. No party shall be deemed to have agreed to, or acquiesced in, any written order of a trial court so as to forfeit his right to contest such order on appeal except by express written agreement in his endorsement of the order. The first question before this Court is whether Hart expressly waived the arguments he presented to the trial court in his memorandum in support of his motion for summary judgment, thereby precluding him from assigning error to the portion of the trial court's letter opinion that was adverse to him. Hart's endorsement as [s]een and consented to was no more an express waiver of his objection to the trial court's unfavorable ruling than was Johnson's endorsement of the order as [s]een and objected to an objection to that portion of the same ruling, which was favorable to her. Rather, the context of Hart's endorsement, as the prevailing party, indicates that he consented to the trial court's order granting his motion for summary judgment. With regard to the trial court's ruling that Johnson was a beneficial owner of a legal malpractice action pursuant to Code § 8.01-13, Hart clearly stated his opposition to this ruling in memoranda before the court and cannot be deemed to have abandoned this position by acquiescing in a summary judgment order in his favor.