{"id":14283,"date":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","date_gmt":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/?p=14283"},"modified":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","modified_gmt":"2020-08-25T14:07:54","slug":"virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"Virginia Supreme Court: Unrepresented Parties Who Benefit From Partition Not Responsible For Plaintiff\u2019s Attorneys Fees"},"content":{"rendered":"

It is not uncommon for one party to spearhead a lawsuit that benefits others who are not represented in the litigation.\u00a0 This scenario is often the case in partition actions involving inherited real property.\u00a0 In Berry v. Fitzhugh<\/a>, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of attorney\u2019s fees to the plaintiff from other owner\u2019s shares of the property on the grounds that the attorney\u2019s services were not rendered to the other owners.<\/p>\n

The Facts Of Berry v. Fitzhugh<\/h2>\n

In 2012, five siblings \u2013 Marsha, Gregory, Lisa, Rodney, and Marilyn \u2013 inherited real property in Virginia from their mother.\u00a0 When they inherited the property, Gregory was living in the basement, and Marilyn was living in the main level.\u00a0 Marilyn moved out in 2013, and Lisa moved into the main level of the property.\u00a0 Marsha and Rodney never lived in the property.<\/p>\n

In 2018, Marsha brought a partition action, and named her four siblings as defendants.\u00a0 Gregory and Lisa (the \u201crepresented siblings\u201d) opposed the action and were represented by counsel. \u00a0Marilyn and Rodney (the \u201cunrepresented siblings\u201d) did not file any pleadings opposing Marsha\u2019s complaint and appeared pro se at trial.<\/p>\n

During her closing argument at trial, Marsha requested that upon the sale of the property that her attorney\u2019s fees \u201cbe shared by the unrepresented parties in this case pursuant to Virginia Code \u00a7 8.01-92.\u201d\u00a0 She also requested that all of her remaining costs in bringing the partition action be paid out of the proceeds of the sale.<\/p>\n

The trial court ordered the property sold, and that the proceeds be split equally among all five siblings, finding that Marsha had not adequately proven that the distribution should be uneven because of the represented siblings occupation of the property.<\/p>\n

With regard to Marsha\u2019s request for attorney\u2019s fees, the trial court stated:<\/p>\n

I don’t think it’s fair for two people that were on a different side as pro se, unrepresented by counsel, [to] have to pay for services rendered to the opposing side. So I’m not going to require attorney’s fees on that matter. All parties will pay their own attorney’s\u00a0fees.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What Is A Partition Suit In Virginia?<\/h2>\n

Tenants in common, joint tenants, executors with the power to sell, and coparceners of real property can bring a partition action in Virginia.\u00a0 Virginia Code 8.01-81<\/a>.\u00a0 Partition can be ordered in kind, or the property can be ordered sold, with the proceeds being distributed amongst the owners.<\/p>\n

Partition is commonly used for inherited real property, where many people who never wanted to own real\u00a0 property together, end up owning real property together.\u00a0 A Virginia partition action is a vehicle to force the sale of the property so that heirs do not have to own real property together if they do not want to.<\/p>\n

Are Attorneys Fees In Virginia Partition Actions Shared Equally Among The Owners?<\/h2>\n

No, attorney\u2019s fees are not automatically shared amongst the owners.\u00a0 The general rule for attorney\u2019s fees is that each party is responsible for their own attorney\u2019s fees.\u00a0 The Virginia Code has a special provision for unrepresented shares in a partition action.\u00a0 Virginia Code \u00a7 8.01-92<\/a> states:<\/p>\n

In any partition suit when there are unrepresented shares, the court shall allow reasonable fees to the attorney or attorneys bringing the action on account of the services rendered to the parceners unrepresented by counsel.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Marsha relied on section 8.01-92 to argue that the trial court was required to award her attorney\u2019s fees out of her unrepresented siblings\u2019 shares.\u00a0 Marsha urged that services were rendered to her unrepresented siblings, because they received the benefit of her partition action (their proceeds of sale).<\/p>\n

Does Receipt Of A Benefit Mean That Services Were Rendered?<\/h2>\n

The Virginia Supreme Court focused on the distinction between receipt of a benefit and the rendition of services.\u00a0 The Court cautioned that while receiving a benefit can indicate services were rendered, it is not a foregone conclusion, because such an approach omits any consideration of the parties\u2019 interests in the outcome of the litigation.<\/p>\n

The Virginia Supreme Court cited to Patterson v. Old Dominion, <\/em>a 1931 Virginia Supreme Court case where the Court recognized that even where the actions of a plaintiff create a common benefit for all parties, attorney\u2019s fees should not be awarded against a party whose interests are antagonistic to those of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n

In affirming the judgment of the trial court, the Virginia Supreme Court stated:<\/p>\n

Here, Marsha offered no evidence that her unrepresented siblings supported her partition suit.\u00a0 Since Marsha was the party claiming the attorneys fees, Marsha bore the burden of presenting evidence that her unrepresented siblings supported her partition suit and persuading the trial court that she was entitled to fees under the statute.\u00a0 Marsha did not rebut the court\u2019s implicit ruling that the unrepresented siblings\u2019 interests were antagonistic to hers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Virginia Supreme Court interpreted the trial court\u2019s statement that \u201ctwo people that were on a different side as pro see\u201d to mean that the unrepresented siblings were antagonistic to Marsha, the plaintiff.\u00a0 It seems just as logical to view their presence as defendants in the case as a product of having to be named parties, as owners of the inherited real property, and not wanting to join in as plaintiffs or hire an attorney to bring the lawsuit.\u00a0 Presence as defendants does not necessarily mean that they were antagonistic to Marsha, or did not invite the result of the suit.<\/p>\n

Does An Owner-Tenant Automatically Owe Rent To The Other Owners In A Virginia Partition Action?<\/h2>\n

The Virginia Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court\u2019s decision in refusing to award the fair rental value of the Property to the siblings not in possession of the property from the siblings in possession.<\/p>\n

The trial court refused to award fair rental value because:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The evidence was insufficient to establish that the other siblings were excluded from the Property.<\/li>\n
  2. The siblings never had any formal agreement regarding rent.<\/li>\n
  3. Lisa and Gregory paid for the maintenance and care of the Property.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

    The Virginia Supreme Court stated:<\/p>\n

    Here, the trial court’s reliance on the fact that Lisa and Gregory paid for the upkeep and care of the Property provides a sufficient basis for its ruling. The trial court clearly determined that the amount Lisa and Gregory spent maintaining the Property essentially offset any rent that they may have owed to the other\u00a0siblings. Such a determination would provide a separate and independent legal basis for affirming the trial court’s ruling on this issue. Accordingly, the trial court’s refusal to award fair rental value will be affirmed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Partition actions for inherited property can get complicated when there are many owners, some of whom live in the property, and some who just want to sell it and get the proceeds.\u00a0 Even though it seems reasonable that the person seeking partition should not have to bear all of the attorney\u2019s fees when the co-owners benefited from the action, unless you can prove that the services were rendered to those co-owners, you might be left totally responsible under Virginia law.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    It is not uncommon for one party to spearhead a lawsuit that benefits others who are not represented in the litigation.\u00a0 This scenario is often the case in partition actions involving inherited real property.\u00a0 In Berry v. Fitzhugh, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the denial of attorney\u2019s fees to the plaintiff from other owner\u2019s shares […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4481,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18],"tags":[4829],"yoast_head":"\nVirginia Supreme Court: Unrepresented Parties Who Benefit From Partition Not Responsible For Plaintiff\u2019s Attorneys Fees<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Virginia Supreme Court rules that owners of inherited real property do not have to equally bear attorneys fees in partition action.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Virginia Supreme Court: Unrepresented Parties Who Benefit From Partition Not Responsible For Plaintiff\u2019s Attorneys Fees\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Virginia Supreme Court rules that owners of inherited real property do not have to equally bear attorneys fees in partition action.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Probate Stars\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Probate-Stars-104203374358153\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffrey.skatoff\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-08-25T14:07:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/virginia-4.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"627\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@JeffreySkatoff\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Probate Stars\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Probate-Stars-104203374358153\/\"],\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#logo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/profil-facebook.jpg\",\"width\":180,\"height\":180,\"caption\":\"Probate Stars\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#logo\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/\",\"name\":\"Probate Stars\",\"description\":\"Find a Probate Lawyer in all 50 States\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/virginia-4.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627,\"caption\":\"virginia partition attorneys fees\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/\",\"name\":\"Virginia Supreme Court: Unrepresented Parties Who Benefit From Partition Not Responsible For Plaintiff\\u2019s Attorneys Fees\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-25T14:07:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-25T14:07:54+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Virginia Supreme Court rules that owners of inherited real property do not have to equally bear attorneys fees in partition action.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"item\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/category\/state\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/category\/state\/\",\"name\":\"States\"}},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"item\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/category\/state\/virginia\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/category\/state\/virginia\/\",\"name\":\"Virginia\"}},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"item\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/\",\"name\":\"Virginia Supreme Court: Unrepresented Parties Who Benefit From Partition Not Responsible For Plaintiff\\u2019s Attorneys Fees\"}}]},{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#webpage\"},\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#\/schema\/person\/0d4a38ec0c5ba42eb7b63278e6501199\"},\"headline\":\"Virginia Supreme Court: Unrepresented Parties Who Benefit From Partition Not Responsible For Plaintiff\\u2019s Attorneys Fees\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-08-25T14:07:54+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-08-25T14:07:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#webpage\"},\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/virginia-supreme-court-unrepresented-parties-who-benefit-from-partition-not-responsible-for-plaintiffs-attorneys-fees\/#primaryimage\"},\"keywords\":\"Partition\",\"articleSection\":\"Virginia\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#\/schema\/person\/0d4a38ec0c5ba42eb7b63278e6501199\",\"name\":\"Jeffrey Skatoff\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a12f92f4f11563eb702b172299c7aa93?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jeffrey Skatoff\"},\"description\":\"Jeffrey Skatoff has been an attorney for over 30 years, practicing in the areas of estate planning, probate, estate litigation, and guardianship litigation.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/jeffrey.skatoff\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/JeffreySkatoff\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14283"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14283\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4481"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/probatestars.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}