CaseSYNCHRONIZED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. v. PRAV LODGING, LLC, ET AL.
(Record Number 131569)
FromThe Circuit Court of Orange County; Daniel R. Bouton, Jr., Judge.
CounselJames H. Higginbotham, II and Andrew N. Felice (Rees Broome) for appellant.
Paul S. Bliley, Jr., W. Alexander Burnett and Joseph E. Blackburn, III (Williams Mullen) and Sean D. Gregg for appellees.
Assignments of Error
- The Circuit Court erred in dismissing Synchronized's mechanic's lien enforcement action where Paris, the construction manager, did not have a recognized possessory or expectancy interest in the lien enforcement action which could be defeated or diminished as the result suit and therefore was not a necessary party to the action. While Paris may have had a contractual claim against the owner of the Project arising out of its Contract, the facts below reveal that Paris never satisfied the express conditions precedents found in its Contract in order to preserve and maintain such claims. Hence, even if Paris had contractual claims, those claims would not be sufficient to mandate a finding that Paris was a necessary party to the lien enforcement action brought by Synchronized.
- The Circuit Court applied an incorrect standard in analyzing whether Paris was a necessary party to the lien enforcement action and thus erred in dismissing Synchronized mechanic's lien enforcement action where the presence of the Paris was not required under Virginia law.
- The Circuit Court erred in that Virginia Code Sec. 43-22 (1950, As Amended) does not explicitly require a Paris to be included as a party to a mechanic's lien enforcement action or at all times be viable party in a mechanic's lien enforcement action where the facts below showed that Synchronized had the ability to present proof at trial of the balance due under the Prav Lodging-Paris Contract at all relevant times including at the time Synchronized's mechanics's lien was recorded.