Court Opinion

ID: 9849294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:38:02.35717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:15.745778
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, J.,
dissenting.
The majority concludes that Sie-Gray voluntarily acceded to Prince William County’s illegal demands and, therefore, forfeited its right to any relief under Hylton v. Prince William Co., 220 Va. 435, 258 S.E.2d 577 (1979). That conclusion is not supported by the evidence.
We held in Hylton that the County had no authority to require a developer to make off-site improvements on existing public roads in order to obtain the County’s approval of an otherwise acceptable subdivision plan. Yet, when Hall, the original developer here, submitted a proper plan, the County refused to approve it for precisely that reason. Hall sold to Sie-Gray, which agreed to improve the existing road because, and only because, it could obtain the County’s approval in no other way. Both Hall and Sie-Gray were faced with a simple choice: either “agree” to make the road improvements or forget the proposed development. To characterize an agreement made under these circumstances as “voluntary” is to engage, at best, in circular reasoning.
I think the trial court correctly determined that the “agreement” was coerced and properly refused to enforce it. I would not permit the County to profit by its wrong and would affirm the judgment.
COMPTON, J., joins in dissent.