The Virginia Supreme Court docket just lately issued a ruling that clarifies that beneath the Virginia Uniform Energy of Legal professional Act, trial courts might award financial damages towards an agent beneath an influence of lawyer (POA), however might not problem an injunction directing that the agent should return cash.
Virginia Energy of Legal professional Legislation
The difficulty arose as a result of language contained within the Virginia Uniform Energy of Legal professional Act, Part 64.2-1615(1), which offers that brokers beneath POAs are “liable to the principal or the principal’s successors in curiosity for the quantity required to [r]estore the worth of the principal’s property to what it could have been had the violation not occurred.” At problem within the case, Mangrum v. Chavis, was whether or not this language offers that the agent beneath a POA who’s being sued for alleged monetary improprieties could also be compelled by court docket order to revive cash to the property of the deceased principal beneath the POA or whether or not it offers merely cash judgment could also be entered towards the agent.
Cash Damages
The plaintiff argued that the language of the statute (specializing in the phrase “restore”) permitted the trial court docket to order that the defendant be enjoined to return funds to the property. The defendant argued that the statute (with its reference to “is liable”) merely establishes a foundation for a financial judgment to be entered towards him (versus the equitable treatment of an injunction). On enchantment, the Virginia Supreme Court docket held that the language “permits the circuit court docket to award a judgment for cash damages towards the attorney-in-fact to his or her principal, or to the principal’s successors-in-interest, to not enjoin or to decree particular efficiency res be returned.”
Significance of Ruling
This ruling is critical for a number of causes. First, it clarifies the treatments litigant should plead in a lawsuit when asserting claims towards an agent beneath a POA. Second, it makes it a bit tougher for a plaintiff to get well on a judgment towards the agent. In mild of the ruling, a profitable plaintiff who’s obtained a judgment towards an agent beneath a POA should undertake efforts to attempt to acquire on the judgment if the judgment isn’t paid (these efforts might embody conducting debtor’s interrogatories, garnishing wages, garnishing financial institution accounts, and so on.). If the agent doesn’t have ample property from which to fulfill the judgment, the plaintiff will successfully be out of luck till a day comes when the agent acquires some property.
If the court docket had accepted the plaintiff’s place, an agent beneath a POA can be topic to a trial court docket’s contempt energy if he didn’t restore the cash he was ordered to, and subsequently the agent could possibly be topic to fines or imprisonment by the court docket for failing to conform. This may have supplied a extra highly effective treatment for a profitable plaintiff (in comparison with a mere financial judgment).