Duggin v. Adams

• Decision Date: 09 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 840906,840906
• Citation: 234 Va. 221,360 S.E.2d 832
• Parties: Kenneth D. DUGGIN, Trustee, v. C. Douglas ADAMS. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 832

360 S.E.2d 832

234 Va. 221

Kenneth D. DUGGIN, Trustee, v. C. Douglas ADAMS.

Record No. 840906.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Oct. 9, 1987.

James R. Tate (Andrew M. Vanderhoof, Tate & Bywater, Ltd., Vienna, on briefs), for appellant.

Dexter Odin (David E. Feldman, Nelson Blitz, Odin, Feldman & Pittleman, P.C., Fairfax, on brief), for appellee.

Present: All the Justices.

STEPHENSON, Justice.

The question presented in this appeal is whether a motion for judgment contains allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for tortious interference with a terminable-at-will sales contract.

Kenneth D. Duggin, Trustee, sued C. Douglas Adams, claiming that Adams tortiously interfered with Duggin's contract rights with Betty B. Williams for the purchase of a tract of land in Fairfax County. Adams demurred to the allegations contained in Duggin's motion for judgment. The trial court sustained the demurrer. After denying Duggin's "Motion for Reconsideration and/or Leave to Amend," the court entered final judgment for Adams. Duggin appeals. ^*

In deciding the question presented, we will adhere to the rule that "[a] demurrer admits the truth of all material facts that are properly pleaded." Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534, 536, 331 S.E.2d 797, 798 (1985). The facts admitted are: "(1) facts expressly alleged, (2) facts which are by fair intendment impliedly alleged, and (3) facts which may be fairly and justly inferred from the facts alleged." Ames v. American Nat. Bank, 163 Va. 1, 37, 176 S.E. 204, 215-16 (1934) (footnote omitted).

Duggin's motion for judgment contains the following allegations: In July 1978, Duggin entered into a contract to purchase approximately four and one-half acres of land from Williams for $950,000. Adams, an attorney-at-law licensed to practice in the Commonwealth, represented Williams throughout the transaction with Duggin.

Performance of the contract was contingent upon the results of certain engineering studies and upon Fairfax County's approval of an application to rezone the land. The contract provided that either party could terminate it in the event the rezoning contingency was not met within 18 months from the date the contract was ratified.

At the expiration of the 18-month period, the land had not been rezoned. Consequently, Duggin and Williams entered into an addendum to the original contract, which extended the contract period an additional 18 months and provided for a decrease in the purchase price if the rezoning was not approved. The addendum also provided that "[i]n the event settlement has not been finalized on or before 15 June 1981 then this [addendum] and subject contract can be cancelled by either party hereto as provided for in subject contract."

Duggin expended "a great amount of money, time and effort" for engineering tests and on the rezoning application. Consequently, the value of Williams' land "was substantially increased."

On August 8, 1980, Duggin entered into an agreement with Centennial Contractors, Inc. (now Centennial Development Corporation) (Centennial) for the future assignment of the contract. The agreement provided for Duggin to receive an assignment fee of $119,673.60, contingent upon Centennial's obtaining the property from Williams. On July 22, 1981, Duggin assigned the contract to Centennial.

On July 23, 1981, after the lapse of the second 18-month contract expiration period, Centennial delivered by messenger a notice to Adams that Centennial was ready for settlement under the contract, and on the following day Centennial gave notice that settlement had been scheduled for July 29, 1981, at 2:00 p.m. Centennial was present for settlement on the scheduled date and fully prepared to perform under the contract. Williams, however, did not attend the settlement and did not convey title to Centennial. Williams' failure to attend the settlement and convey title "was the direct result of Adams' tortious interference with Duggin's contractual rights and caused Duggin to lose his assignment fee."

As Williams' attorney, Adams learned that Centennial was willing to pay Duggin the assignment fee for Duggin's contractual rights. Commencing in June 1981, Adams used this knowledge to "willfully, wantonly, intentionally, maliciously and wrongfully [lay] plans to deprive [Duggin] of this valuable property right and to thereby enrich himself." The essential elements of Adams' plan were to (1) secure cancellation of the Williams-Duggin contract, (2) induce Williams to contract to sell the land to Adams, and (3) sell the Williams-Adams contract to Centennial.

In carrying out his plan, Adams wrote a letter to Duggin, dated June 30, 1981, wrongfully accusing Duggin of breaching the contract and stating that Duggin had forfeited his deposit. Because Adams knew that the contract had not been breached, his letter "was a malicious, knowing, intentional and wrongful act ... to fraudulently mislead and intimidate [Duggin] into giving up his contract rights."

On the same day that Centennial notified Adams that it was ready to settle with Williams, "Adams willfully, wantonly, wrongfully and maliciously induced ... Williams to sign a contract, which Adams had prepared, giving Adams the right to purchase the subject property and requiring Williams to cancel her contract with Duggin." Williams then sent Duggin a letter, prepared by Adams, "purporting to cancel" the contract. Duggin maintained, however, that the contract was not cancelled because Williams had not returned the deposit.

On July 28, 1981, the day before the scheduled settlement with Centennial, Adams provided Williams with $50,000 and instructed her to use the money to repay Duggin's deposit. At the same time, Adams advised Williams not to attend the settlement scheduled for the following day. In August 1981, Adams contacted Centennial and offered to sell it the Williams property.

Throughout the entire Williams-Duggin transaction, Adams represented that he was acting only as Williams' attorney. In doing so, Adams "willfully, wantonly, and maliciously concealed his true role and the fact that he had begun to act in his own behalf." While Duggin had the right to expect Adams to adhere to the canons and ethics of the Virginia State Bar, Adams, to the contrary, engaged in "deceptive, willful, wanton, malicious and secret self dealing" for his own personal gain. "Adams' willful, wanton, wrongful, knowing, intentional and malicious conduct ... was aggravated, unjustified and in utter disregard of [Duggin's] contract rights and property interests."

Duggin provided Williams with confidential information concerning the development of the property and his assignment agreement with Centennial. "Adams had access to this confidential information which [Duggin] would not have disclosed to Adams had he known [that] Adams would attempt to use [the] information for his own personal gain and to [Duggin's] pecuniary loss.... Adams used his position as ... Williams' attorney and his resulting access to confidential information, without disclosing his true interest in the matter, to enhance his own competitive position regarding the subject real estate transaction."

We now consider whether these allegations were sufficient to survive a demurrer. A party to a contract has property rights in the performance of and anticipated profits from the contract, and these rights are entitled to protection in the courts. Worrie v. Boze, 198 Va. 533, 536, 95 S.E.2d 192, 196 (1956). Thus, one who intentionally interferes with another's contractual rights is subject to tort liability. Chaves v. Johnson, 230 Va. 112, 120, 335 S.E.2d 97, 102 (1985).

The requisite elements for a prima facie showing of a tortious interference with a contract that is not terminable at will are: "(1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferor; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted." Chaves, 230 Va. at 120, 335 S.E.2d at 102. Once a plaintiff shows that an intentional interference with a contract not terminable at will caused him damage, the burden to show that the interference was justified, privileged, or not improper shifts to the defendant. Id. at 121, 335 S.E.2d at 103.

Unlike a party to a contract for a definite term, however, an individual's interest in a contract terminable at will is essentially only an expectancy of future economic gain, and he has no legal assurance that he will realize the expected gain. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 comment g (1979). Thus, the cause of action for interference with contractual rights provides no protection from the mere intentional interference with a contract terminable at will. Hechler Chevrolet v. General Motors Corp., 230 Va. 396, 402, 337 S.E.2d 744, 748 (1985). Accord Chaves, 230 Va. at 121, 335 S.E.2d at 103 (distinguishing interferences with contracts terminable at will and prospective business relationships from interferences with existing contracts not terminable at will). In short, the extent of permissible third-party interference increases as the degree of enforceability of a business relationship decreases.

Nevertheless, the fact that a contract is terminable at the will of the parties does not make it terminable at the will of others. See Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 38, 36 S.Ct. 7, 9, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915) (recognizing that the weight of authority considers a third party's unjustified interference with an employment-at-will contract actionable). However, the prima facie approach of basing liability on a mere showing that a third party's intentional interference with a contract terminable at will caused damage requires too little of the plaintiff.

Consequently, when a contract is terminable at...