Magid v. O'Keefe

• Docket Number: 1814-22-3
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: DEBORAH R. MAGID v. JOHN J. O'KEEFE, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW
• Court: Virginia Court of Appeals

1

DEBORAH R. MAGID
v.
JOHN J. O'KEEFE, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW

No. 1814-22-3

Court of Appeals of Virginia

December 28, 2023

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG J. Frederick Watson, Judge

M. Paul Valois (James River Legal Associates, on briefs), for appellant.

Pavlina B. Dirom (Caskie & Frost, A Professional Corporation, on brief), for appellee.

Present: Judges Huff, Athey and Fulton Argued at Lexington, Virginia

MEMORANDUM OPINION ^[*]

CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR., JUDGE

John O'Keefe ("O'Keefe") represented Deborah Magid ("Magid") in a divorce action. Magid failed to pay O'Keefe for his work performed in the divorce case, so he then brought a separate action to recover those fees. He was then awarded fees and costs in the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg ("circuit court"). Magid assigns error to the circuit court's judgment, alleging that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. For the following reasons, we affirm the holding of the circuit court.

I. Background

Prior to his attempt to recover fees from Magid, O'Keefe represented Magid in a divorce proceeding. On September 27, 2021, O'Keefe filed a warrant in debt action against Magid in the Lynchburg General District Court ("general district court") seeking to recover $19,413.11 in

2

damages for the unpaid attorney fees. The record neither indicates that Magid was properly served in the warrant in debt action, nor that Magid filed any responsive pleading in the general district court. On January 31, 2022, O'Keefe filed a second claim attempting to recover the same unpaid fees from Magid in the circuit court without withdrawing the pending claim in the general district court. O'Keefe later explained to the circuit court (and reiterates to this Court on appeal) that he filed the second action because the general district court set the matter for trial on May 20, 2022, "almost eight months from the date the Warrant in Debt was originally filed."

The circuit court subsequently held a hearing on March 4, 2022. Proceeding pro se, Magid had filed an answer and affirmative defenses in the circuit court on February 18, 2022; however, she failed to attend the March 4, 2022 hearing. At the hearing, the circuit court received evidence from O'Keefe, ruled in his favor, and, on March 7, 2022, entered an order ("March 7 order") awarding him the unpaid attorney fees, plus costs. On March 29, 2022, O'Keefe withdrew the warrant in debt from general district court.

On June 15, 2022, upon retaining counsel, Magid filed in the circuit court a motion to set aside the March 7 order as void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.^[1] Magid asserted that because the same action was pending in general district court when O'Keefe filed his complaint in circuit court, and remained pending when the circuit court entered its final order, the circuit court did not

3

have subject matter jurisdiction under Code § 17.1-513. The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion on October 12, 2022, heard oral argument, and ultimately denied Magid's motion to set aside the judgment.

At the hearing, the circuit court concluded that it "had concurrent jurisdiction with the General District Court over the matters raised by Mr. O'Keeffe and that [the circuit court did not] know of any law that would say filing in the General District Court would disabuse this Court of concurrent jurisdiction." In accord with these findings, the circuit court entered a final order on October 24, 2022 ("October 24 order"), denying Magid's motion to set aside the judgment. Magid appealed.

II. Analysis

A. Standard of Review

A "jurisdictional challenge raises a question of law that 'we review de novo.'" Riddick v. Commonwealth, 72 Va.App. 132, 139 (2020) (quoting Richardson v. Commonwealth, 67 Va.App. 436, 442 (2017)). "The subject matter jurisdiction of circuit courts is 'entirely prescribed by statute.'" Id. at 143 (quoting Kelley v. Stamos, 285 Va. 68, 75 (2013)). The jurisdictional challenge therefore also raises an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. See Holland v. Commonwealth, 62 Va.App. 445, 451 (2013).

B. The record...