Court Opinion

ID: 9939929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 14:15:19.608748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:08.739993
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Senior Judge Haley
UNPUBLISHED

              Argued by videoconference

              CYNTHIA P. OLIVER
                                                                               MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 0225-23-2                                         PER CURIAM
                                                                                 FEBRUARY 13, 2024
              KIMBERLY A. PINCHBECK, P.C.

                                                     UPON A REHEARING

                                 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
                                        Frederick G. Rockwell, III, Judge Designate

                               Danny Zemel (Anthony F. Troy; The Krudys Law Firm, PLC; The
                               Stanley Law Group, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.

                               Amanda J. Foster (Kimberly A. Pinchbeck; Kimberly A. Pinchbeck,
                               P.C., on brief), for appellee.

                      Cynthia P. Oliver appeals the circuit court’s judgment awarding $65,472.47 in unpaid legal

              fees for Kimberly A. Pinchbeck, P.C. Oliver asserts that the circuit court erred in awarding

              Pinchbeck summary judgment based on its prior order which did not resolve the contractual

              disagreement. Finding that there are material facts genuinely in dispute, we reverse and remand

              for further proceedings.

                                                        BACKGROUND

                      Pinchbeck represented Oliver in legal proceedings involving an estate dispute in

              Chesterfield County Circuit Court. Oliver filed a motion to have $82,819.24 of her attorneys’ fees

              due to Pinchbeck paid by the estate. The circuit court ordered that the estate pay only $22,500 of

              Oliver’s fees, but also found Pinchbeck’s fees “to be reasonable in their totality.”

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
        Pinchbeck filed a subsequent complaint against Oliver for $65,472.47 in unpaid legal fees.

Pinchbeck moved for summary judgment relying upon the circuit court’s prior order determining

her fees to be reasonable. After both parties briefed the issues and presented oral argument at a

November 2, 2022 hearing, the circuit court granted summary judgment based upon the prior order

and awarded Pinchbeck the full amount sought in her complaint. Oliver appealed to this Court but

failed to timely file the transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript necessary to

the appeal pursuant to Rule 5A:8. As a result, the Court issued a memorandum opinion on October

24, 2023, that the merits of her assignments of error could not be reached and affirmed the circuit

court’s judgment.

        Oliver filed a petition for rehearing and in the alternative a petition for rehearing en banc.

The Court granted the petition for rehearing relying on Oliver’s argument that no transcript or

written statement of facts was necessary because the circuit court’s decision was based solely on the

pleadings and arguments deriving from the pleadings. Because the transcript and written statements

of facts are not “necessary to permit resolution” of Oliver’s assignments of error, the Court held a

rehearing on January 3, 2024. Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).

                                               ANALYSIS

        “We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” VACORP v. Young,

298 Va. 490, 494 (2020). For a moving party to be entitled to summary judgment, it must be

“demonstrate[d] that no ‘material’ facts are ‘genuinely in dispute.’” AlBritton v. Commonwealth,

299 Va. 392, 403 (2021). “It follows that immaterial facts genuinely in dispute or material facts

not genuinely in dispute do not preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. Further, whether

a contract is ambiguous is a question of law that we review de novo. Stroud v. Stroud, 49

Va. App. 359, 367 (2007). “Contract language is ambiguous when ‘it may be understood in

more than one way or when it refers to two or more things at the same time.’” Eure v. Norfolk

                                                   -2-
Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp., 263 Va. 624, 632 (2002) (quoting Granite State Ins. Co. v.

Bottoms, 243 Va. 228, 234 (1992)). “However, ‘[a] contract is not ambiguous merely because

the parties disagree as to the meaning of the terms used.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting

TM Delmarva Power, L.L.C. v. NCP of Va., L.L.C., 263 Va. 116, 119 (2002)).

        Oliver argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in finding no material facts genuinely

in dispute based on its prior May 8, 2019 order.1 In this order, the circuit court awarded

Pinchbeck $22,500 and stated that it found “counsel’s fees to be reasonable in their totality.”

Oliver argues that the circuit court found only the $22,500 fees to be reasonable as opposed to

the totality of Pinchbeck’s claimed fees. We disagree. The circuit court stated that the fees were

reasonable “in their totality.” During a hearing on May 8, 2019, the circuit court further stated

that it did not find the fees were excessive and found the fees “were reasonable.” Therefore,

there is no material dispute over whether the fees are reasonable as the issue has been decided by

the circuit court.

        Nevertheless, that the fees are reasonable does not address the additional arguments

raised by Oliver that she and Pinchbeck do not agree on the terms of the oral contract.

Pinchbeck in her complaint states that Oliver “expressly and implicitly agreed to” the terms of

representation and was “billed on a regular basis.” Oliver in her answer denies “that the amounts

were ever agreed to or authorized” and states that she “was advised and understood that no

further fees would be paid or forthcoming beyond what had already been paid.” Oliver further

states in her answer that Pinchbeck was “not solely” working for Oliver. On appeal, Oliver

expounds on this point by arguing that the order, which the circuit court relied on for summary

judgment, does not state if Oliver was responsible for the claimed fees or the estate and its

        Because we agree with Oliver on this issue, we need not address Oliver’s second
        1

assignment of error.
                                             -3-
beneficiaries. Oliver contends she has a recoupment claim based on her answer that Pinchbeck

“failed to represent [Oliver] professionally and ethically and thus do[es] not merit the entitlement

of any fees.” Pinchbeck responds that the circuit court repeatedly found that Pinchbeck did an

“outstanding job,” but again this does not resolve whether Pinchbeck’s representation violated

the contract such that she is not entitled to fees.

        Thus, it appears the parties do not agree on the terms of the contract. We find the

contract language is ambiguous as “it may be understood in more than one way.” Granite State

Ins., 243 Va. at 234. In such instances, a grant of summary judgment is error because other

evidence is necessary to resolve the ambiguity. See Greater Richmond Civic Recreation, Inc. v.

A. H. Ewing’s Sons, Inc., 200 Va. 593, 596 (1959) (“[W]hen a contract is ambiguous it is

necessary to resort to parol evidence to ascertain the exact intention of the parties. This is

especially true when no formal written contract has been entered into by the parties.”); Cascades

N. Venture Ltd. P’ship v. PRC Inc., 249 Va. 574, 582 (1995) (“Because the meaning of the

disputed lease provisions is unclear, the intention of the parties is a material issue in dispute, so

that summary judgment was improper.”); Ciejek v. Laird, 238 Va. 109, 111 (1989) (holding that

grant of summary judgment based on controlling document was error when document was

ambiguous).

        Because Oliver has demonstrated the terms of the oral contract are ambiguous and

genuinely in dispute, the Court finds that the circuit court “incorrectly has short-circuited

litigation pretrial and has decided the dispute without permitting the parties to reach a trial on the

merits.” Fultz v. Delhaize Am., Inc., 278 Va. 84, 88 (2009).

                                                  -4-
                                        CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the circuit court erred in granting summary

judgment.

                                                                         Reversed and remanded.

                                              -5-
              VIRGINIA:
UNPUBLISHED

                          In the Court of Appeals of Virginia on Tuesday            the 28th day of November, 2023.

              Cynthia P. Oliver,                                                                                          Appellant,

              against              Record No. 0225-23-2
                                   Circuit Court No. CL22-1529

              Kimberly A. Pinchbeck, P.C.,                                                                                Appellee.

                                                       Upon a Petition for Rehearing

                                           Before Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Senior Judge Haley

                       On November 6, 2023 came appellant, by counsel, and filed a petition praying that the Court set aside

              the judgment rendered herein on October 24, 2023, and grant a rehearing thereof.

                       On consideration whereof, the petition for rehearing is granted, the opinion rendered on October 24,

              2023 is withdrawn, the mandate entered on that date is vacated, and the case is reinstated on the docket of the

              Court.

                                                        A Copy,

                                                                Teste:

                                                                                      A. John Vollino, Clerk

                                                                         original order signed by a deputy clerk of the
                                                                By:      Court of Appeals of Virginia at the direction
                                                                         of the Court

                                                                                      Deputy Clerk
                                             COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, Ortiz and Senior Judge Haley
UNPUBLISHED

              CYNTHIA P. OLIVER
                                                                                MEMORANDUM OPINION*
              v.      Record No. 0225-23-2                                           PER CURIAM
                                                                                   OCTOBER 24, 2023
              KIMBERLY A. PINCHBECK, P.C.

                                 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
                                        Frederick G. Rockwell, III, Judge Designate

                               (Danny Zemel; Anthony F. Troy; The Krudys Law Firm, PLC; The
                               Stanley Law Group, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant.

                               (Amanda J. Foster; Kimberly A. Pinchbeck; Kimberly A. Pinchbeck,
                               P.C., on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief.

                      Cynthia P. Oliver appeals the circuit court’s judgment awarding $65,472.47 in unpaid legal

              fees for Kimberly A. Pinchbeck, P.C. We have reviewed the parties’ pleadings, fully examined the

              proceedings, and determined the case to be wholly without merit as set forth below. Thus, the panel

              unanimously holds that oral argument is unnecessary. Code § 17.1-403(ii)(a); Rule 5A:27(a).

              Oliver failed to timely file the transcript or a written statement of facts in lieu of a transcript

              necessary to the appeal pursuant to Rule 5A:8. As a result, we cannot reach the merits of her

              assignments of error. Consequently, we affirm the judgment.

                                                         BACKGROUND

                      Pinchbeck represented Oliver in legal proceedings involving an estate dispute in

              Chesterfield County Circuit Court. Oliver filed a motion to have $82,819.24 of her attorneys’ fees

                      *
                          This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
due to Pinchbeck paid by the estate. The circuit court ordered that the estate pay only $22,500 of

Oliver’s fees, but also found Pinchbeck’s fees “to be reasonable in their totality.”

        Pinchbeck filed a subsequent complaint against Oliver for $65,472.47 in unpaid legal fees.

Pinchbeck moved for summary judgment relying upon the circuit court’s prior order determining

her fees to be reasonable. After both parties briefed the issues and presented oral argument at a

November 2, 2022 hearing, the circuit court granted summary judgment based upon the prior order

and awarded Pinchbeck the full amount sought in her complaint. This appeal followed.

                                             ANALYSIS

        “We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo.” VACORP v. Young,

298 Va. 490, 494 (2020). For a moving party to be entitled to summary judgment, it must be

“demonstrate[d] that no ‘material’ facts are ‘genuinely in dispute.’” AlBritton v. Commonwealth,

299 Va. 392, 403 (2021). “It follows that immaterial facts genuinely in dispute or material facts

not genuinely in dispute do not preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id.

        Oliver argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in finding no material facts genuinely

in dispute based on the prior order and also by placing an improper burden on Oliver in granting

summary judgment. To conduct a de novo review of summary judgment, this Court must review

both the written pleadings and the positions asserted at oral argument.

        “[T]he burden is on the appellant to present to us a sufficient record from which we can

determine whether the lower court has erred in the respect complained of.” Smith v.

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635 (1993) (quoting Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632

(1961)). “When the appellant fails to ensure that the record contains transcripts or a written

statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate issues, any assignments of error

affected by such omission will not be considered.” Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).

                                                 -2-
       The circuit court heard argument on summary judgment on November 2, 2022. Oliver did

not provide a transcript or a written statement of facts regarding what specific arguments the parties

presented to the circuit court and what legal authority supported their positions. In rendering

judgment, the circuit court relied upon not only the pleadings and briefs, but also the arguments and

evidence presented at that hearing.

       With no transcript or written statement of facts pertaining to the November 2, 2022 hearing,

we cannot evaluate the circuit court’s judgment or determine whether the circuit court erred in the

manner that Oliver asserts. Nor can we determine the arguments that Oliver preserved for appellate

review. A transcript or written statement of facts pertaining to the November 2, 2022 hearing is

thus “indispensable to the determination of the case.” Bay v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 520, 528

(2012) (quoting Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99 (1986)). Therefore, we cannot

address the merits of Oliver’s assignments of error. Rule 5A:8(b)(4)(ii).

                                           CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

                                                                                             Affirmed.

                                                 -3-