Opinion ID: 1058012
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Inclusion of the Property's Retail Space in the Final Order

Text: Finally, the City contends that the circuit court erred in including the Property's retail space (Parcel No. 1138) in the final order because the Taxpayers allegedly failed to include that space in the Application. To support its argument, the City relies on our decision in Potts v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 165 Va. 196, 181 S.E. 521 (1935), in which we said: No court can base its decree upon facts not alleged, nor render its judgment upon a right, however meritorious, which has not been pleaded and claimed. Id. at 207, 181 S.E. at 525. What the City fails to mention, however, is that the circuit court made a factual finding that the retail space was at issue: [COUNSEL]: Your honor, only thing I would say is that if you go back to [the Taxpayers'] Exhibit 42, [the City Assessor's] spreadsheet that memorialized the agreement [on values], there's one parcel number there, 1014. . . . That's one of the two in our complaint. That's for both spreadsheets, the office area and the retail area. The evidence is clear that it has always been the office area and the retail area that was part of the agreement and at issue in this case. THE COURT: Well, I'm in agreement with that. I think it's the office area and the retail area that's indicated in the evidence and by the spreadsheet, and so that should be included in the order. (Emphasis added.) Factual findings of a trial court are entitled to the same weight as a jury verdict and will not be set aside unless they are plainly wrong or without evidence to support them. Code § 8.01-680; Transcontinental Ins. Co. v. RBMW, Inc., 262 Va. 502, 510, 551 S.E.2d 313, 317 (2001). On the record before us, we cannot say that the circuit court's factual finding that the retail space was at issue is plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. In addition to Exhibit 42, uncontroverted testimony from Neil Kessler, a Troutman Sanders partner, established that the retail space was at issue and that it had been included in the parties' agreement on post-rehabilitation values. We therefore hold that the circuit court did not err in including the retail space in the final order.