Stamie E. Lyttle Co., Inc. v. Hanover County
| Decision Date | 07 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 821073,821073 |
| Citation | 341 S.E.2d 174,231 Va. 21 |
| Parties | STAMIE E. LYTTLE COMPANY, INC. v. COUNTY OF HANOVER, et al. 1 Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
R.D. McIlwaine, III, Richmond, for appellant.
Peter L. Trible, County Atty., John B. McCammon (Edward E. Nicholas, III, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, on briefs), for appellees.
Present: All the Justices.
The Code of Virginia provides a statutory procedure which must be followed before a claimant may sue a county in contract. In the appeal of this contract action, the question is whether, as the trial court ruled, the claimant is barred for failure to comply with the applicable statutory provisions.
A "claim or demand" must first be presented to the board of supervisors for allowance before the claimant may bring an action against the county. Code § 15.1-554. When a claim is disallowed by the board of supervisors, the claimant may appeal the decision to the circuit court within 30 days of the date of decision or the date on which he is served with written notice of the disallowance, but not more than six months after the date of decision. Code § 15.1-552. Absent consent by the board to an action by the claimant, any board determination disallowing a claim from which no timely appeal is taken is "final and conclusive and a perpetual bar to any action in any court founded on such claim." Code § 15.1-553. This bar does not apply, however, where the board refuses or neglects to act upon a claim duly presented. Id.
The trial court ruled that the claimant presented a claim to the board of supervisors, that the board rejected the claim, and that the claimant, having failed to appeal that determination within the prescribed time, was barred by § 15.1-553 from maintaining this action against the county. Although the facts are undisputed, the validity of the trial court's ruling depends upon its determination that a "claim," within the meaning of § 15.1-554, was rejected by the board of supervisors.
In 1977, Stamie E. Lyttle Company, Inc. (Selco), entered into two separate contracts with the County of Hanover (the County) for the construction of certain improvements to the County's sewer system. Selco performed its work under the contracts. In 1979, Selco asserted the County owed it additional compensation for costs and losses resulting from changes in the work to be performed, delays, and disruptions beyond Selco's control. Negotiations ensued in 1979 and 1980 among Selco, the County, and the project engineers, R. Stuart Royer & Associates, Inc. This dispute was still unresolved in May 1980, when the county attorney wrote Selco that he could not recommend that the Hanover County Board of Supervisors approve the additional compensation Selco had requested but added that Selco was "welcome to present [its] claim to the Board."
By letter dated July 17, 1980, addressed to the Board of Supervisors, Selco submitted a "proposal for settlement of claims." This submission was accompanied by a cover letter to the county administrator, dated July 18, in which Selco referred to the July 17 letter as its "request ... for settlement of claims." In the cover letter, Selco wrote, "If the Board has any questions concerning the claims and will schedule an adequate and mutually convenient time to appear before it, we will be happy to further explain our claims and answer such questions in detail."
In the July 17 submission to the Board, Selco requested payment of $45,080.28, allegedly the aggregate amount of the two contracts' cost overruns caused by unexpected conditions and additional charges incurred in relocating waterlines and repairing existing waterlines. The following passages are excerpts from this letter:
As problems were encountered during the early stages of the projects and throughout the course of the projects, the County's Inspectors and Consulting Engineers were made aware of the problems and the attendant claims; however, either no decision or unacceptable decisions were made on a number of very significant claims. Subsequent to completion of the projects, numerous attempts were made to resolve and settle our claims; but these were also unsuccessful and unproductive.
Therefore, it has become necessary for us to submit our appeal to the Board for consideration and, hopefully, its approval.
While our claims amount to well in excess of $100,000 and could be as high as $250,000 when changes in sequence of work, delays, disruptions, extended overhead, and other appropriate factors are taken into account, we have requested settlement of these claims based solely on direct cost elements which amount to Forty-five thousand eighty dollars and twenty-eight cents ($45,080.28).
Our claims, we feel, are proper, justified, and in keeping with the intent of the contracts. Our offer of settlement is made in the spirit of cooperation and friendship.
....
While an abundance of paperwork is available to support our claims and will be furnished upon request, it does not seem necessary to burden the Board with all the documentation in our files for the projects at this point.
....
Although we have not attempted to extract from our loss of approximately $250,000 all of the items which were occasioned by the insufficiency of plans, changed subsurface physical conditions, and other sources of disruptions and delays, there is no question that the cost impact on these projects was immense.
Nevertheless, as stated previously, in the spirit of cooperation and friendliness and in the hope of achieving a speedy resolution, we are requesting only the $45,080.28 attributable to direct costs incurred in full settlement of our claim.
We regret that we must burden the Board with this decision; however, as we were unable to obtain a decision otherwise, this request was necessary.
The minutes of the July 30, 1980, meeting of the Board reveal that the Board, without dissent, passed a motion to "deny the three (3) claims." 2 Selco, notified of this action by letter of August 12, 1980, took no appeal from the Board's decision.
On February 11, 1981, Selco submitted to the Board a written statement of claims totalling $526,427.32. These claims included the items totalling $45,080.28 which formed the basis for the prior settlement proposal. In addition, Selco presented claims for labor and equipment cost overruns, additional overhead, and loss of additional profits resulting from "differing site conditions, disruptions, out of sequence work, lack of decision and direction from owner, extra work, and work different than provided in the drawings and specifications." On February 13, the County returned unopened the envelope containing these claims.
On February 24, 1981, Selco filed in the trial court a notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lenz v. Com.
...902, 907 (1994); Grist v. Metropolitan Mortgage Fund, 231 Va. 190, 193, 343 S.E.2d 308, 310 (1986); Stamie E. Lyttle Co. v. County of Hanover, 231 Va. 21, 27, 341 S.E.2d 174, 178 (1986); Haynes v. Eakins Van & Storage Co., 211 Va. 231, 233, 176 S.E.2d 342, 344 We do not consider the defenda......
-
Shoup v. Shoup, Record No. 0098-00-4.
...to [divorce] lawsuits are designed to put an end to litigation and are favored by the law.)" (citing Stamie E. Co. v. County of Hanover, 231 Va. 21, 26, 341 S.E.2d 174, 178 (1986)); Code § A substantial body of law has been developed explicating the principles that govern court's jurisdicti......
-
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B
...rise to a right enforceable by a court." Black's Law Dictionary 281 (9th ed. 2009); see also Stamie E. Lyttle Co. v. County of Hanover, 231 Va. 21, 26 n.4, 341 S.E.2d 174, 178 n.4 (1986) (defining a "claim" as "'an authoritative or challengingrequest, ' 'a demand of a right or supposed righ......
-
Uplinger v. Rees Broome, P.C. (In re Uplinger)
...interest rate). At the same time, the law favors settlement of actual or threatened litigation, Stamie E. Lyttle Co. v. County of Hanover, 231 Va. 21, 26, 341 S.E.2d 174, 178 (1986), and an agreement to settle a disputed or uncertain claim will be enforced under the rubric of an accord and ......