Virginia, Maryland & Washington DC

Cowherd PLC
  • Call Today
    703.884.2894
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Construction Law
    • Community Associations Law
    • Neighbor Law
    • Property Litigation
  • About Cowherd PLC
    • Contact the Firm
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Meet John C. Cowherd
    • Website Disclaimer
  • Words of Conveyance Blog
    • Search by Topic
    • Subscribe to Receive Emails
  • Become A Client
Get in Touch

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Intimidating Lawsuit

Home / Blog Archive / Litigation / Plaintiff Sanctioned for Intimidating Lawsuit
Plaintiff Sanctioned for Intimidating Lawsuit
December 1, 2015
Litigation
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Experienced trial lawyers know that judges disfavor parties using litigation as a means of inflicting extra punishment on their opponent beyond the outcome of the case. Lawyers and their clients are supposed to use claims, defenses, motions and other procedures for their intended purposes of working justice. Real estate and construction litigation is an emotional process. In real estate and construction cases, the property at issue represents the owner’s home, business or retirement. In the courthouse, there is a fine line between seeking justice or revenge. In a November 12, 2015 opinion, the Supreme Court of Virginia found that a real estate investor crossed the line into impermissible vindictiveness. The plaintiff sanctioned for intimidating lawsuit.  The Supreme Court upheld an award of sanctions rendered by the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in the investor’s dispute with his ex-girlfriend. When a party is trying everything they can to resolve a dispute quickly and decisively, knowing where one might find the boundary into sanctionable territory is crucial. Even savvy people can find themselves in intractable litigation. This case opinion contains valuable insights for self-protection.

Mitchell Kambis was a real estate broker, home designer and developer who passed away at the age of 71 in October 2015. According to an informative article by Peter Veith in Virginia Lawyer’s Weekly, Kambis restored the historic Empire Theater in Richmond. His obituary states that he attended law school but does not indicate whether he graduated. Kambis was in a romantic relationship with April Considine for over 11 years. Kambis and Considine formed Villa Deste, LLC for developing 130 acres in Albemarle County. To finance the investment, the couple borrowed over $2 million from Considine’s mother. At some point, Kambis transferred all of his ownership interests in Villa Deste to Considine, making her the sole owner. After the couple broke up, Kambis brought a 19 claim Complaint against Considine and her mother over the real estate.

The parties engaged in substantial motions practice over whether the lawsuit brought by Kambis alleged facts sufficient to support the multitude of requests for damages and other remedies. Considine filed a motion for litigation sanctions arguing that the suit was not warranted by existing law and was simply to harass. The Albemarle County Circuit Court threw out some but not all of the claims in Kambis’ lawsuit.  Kambis and his attorney overcame the initial obstacles and got their case scheduled for trial.

As frequently happens in intractable cases, the parties filed a multitude of pretrial motions. Brevity prohibits me from describing them all and how the Court ruled at each stage. The court opinion described a pattern whereby Kambis brought claims or motions, would drop them, and later bring them up again.  12 days before trial, Kambis’ lawyer succeeded in getting the court to allow him to withdraw from the case. A few days later, the now lawyer-less Kambis voluntarily dropped claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court refused to allow Kambis to voluntarily dismiss his claim for fraud because of Considine’s counterclaim.  At some point, Kambis asked for the trial to be postponed because his case was too complicated for him to handle without a lawyer.

Eventually, the Court awarded Considine sanctions in the amount of $64,319.38 against Kambis’s original lawyer. The Court also awarded $84,541.61 against Kambis personally, finding, “a certain level of intent to intimidate Ms. Considine in this particular case.” Kambis ran up the costs of the litigation, including attorney’s fees. The Court further held Kambis responsible for the “costs of the trial and going forward.”

The difference between litigation sanctions from an ordinary award of attorney’s fees is a frequent source of confusion. Generally speaking, parties are responsible for bearing their own costs of litigation, including attorney’s fees. The most common exception is where a contract between the parties provides for an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party. There are other exceptions that may arise out of statutes such as the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.

Virginia law distinguishes an award of attorney’s fees as a litigation sanction under Va. Code § 8.01-271.1 from prevailing party awards. This statute can provide for attorney’s fees regardless of the type of claim or defense brought and what the parties may have agreed to in writing. Courts in Virginia have strictly construed this statute, only applying it in extraordinary circumstances where its key provisions are met:

The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by him that (i) he has read the pleading, motion, or other paper, (ii) to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, formed after reasonable inquiry, it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and (iii) it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.

In expensive, unsettled disputes eventually one party has their legal arguments and factual presentation rejected. The question may arise whether their pursuit or defense of the case was sanctionable. Usually, no. Just because a party completely prevails over their adversary on a motion or at trial does not necessarily mean that there is grounds for sanctions. This exception does not swallow whole the general rule that parties bear their own costs in litigation.

Mitchell Kambis appealed the judge’s award of sanctions. He argued that his fraud claim was well-grounded in law and fact because it survived extensive pretrial motions.  The Supreme Court of Virginia found that the trial court did not need to find Kambis’ claims legally inviable to conclude that they were for an “improper purpose.” This conceptual separation between the viability of claims or defenses and the propriety of a litigant’s purposes in bringing them is what may raise the blood pressure of many trial lawyers trying to walk the line between zealous advocacy and impermissible vindictiveness. Just because a party wins a motion on the sufficiency of a pleading doesn’t mean that claim is “immune” from a sanctions motion later on.

Kambis also argued on appeal that while his court action was intimidating, it was not for an improper purpose that would support an award of sanctions.  The court observed that Kambis’ conduct, “demonstrated he was less interested in vindicating his legal rights and more interested in intimidating and injuring Considine.” Kambis forced Considine to expend a significant amount of time and money in motions practice and in trial preparation before Kambis dropped many of them right before trial.

The court’s award of sanctions was supported by emails and oral courtroom admissions that the lawsuit was designed to intimidate and that if the suit failed, the motion for sanctions had a reasonable likelihood of being granted.

Confusingly, an award of sanctions is not warranted just because a party finds the litigation process intimidating. To start, the act of filing of public documents alleging wrongdoing is intimidating.  What’s more, at the center of any trial, the credibility of a party’s testimony is tested by right of cross-examination. Cross-examination is so intimidating that a law of evidence developed to protect the integrity of this process. Justice Cleo Powell recognized this issue in the Kambis case:

We recognize that almost any legal action is, in some way, intimidating. Such intimidation is inherent in our adversarial legal system and is generally not sanctionable, so long as the intimidation is a collateral effect of a party’s legitimate attempt to vindicate a legal right. The spectre of sanctions arises when intimidation is no longer a collateral effect. Thus, where a party brings an action or makes a filing primarily to intimidate the opposing party, such an action or filing is improper and runs afoul of Code § 8.01-271.1.

Kambis v. Considine clarifies that just because a lawsuit survives initial attempts to dislodge it on motions, it may not necessarily later survive a motions for sanctions. A casual reading of the Kambis opinion might lead some trial lawyers to argue that where a vindictive or intimidating motive can be ascribed to an opponent’s actions, then an award of attorney’s fees are proper. If this was a correct interpretation of this opinion and the statute, then it would increase unnecessary litigation rather than cut it out. Parties’ decisions to bring or defend legal proceedings never occur in a vacuum. Parties and their lawyers would seek sanctions every time their opponent filed anything because an ulterior motive could be intimated from the context of the case. Such an argument would ignore the extraordinary facts in the Kambis case, together with the admissions made regarding Kambis and his lawyer in email and in open court.

It is difficult to end cases like Kambis v. Considine before trial because the credibility of witnesses in a fraud case is not proper for determination on a motion for summary judgment in the Virginia court system. The Supreme Court seems to be saying that while a litigant may have a right to prove their version of the facts at trial, the sanctions statute prohibits them from abusing their right to a trial.

Resentment can fool otherwise sensible people into thinking that they are seeking justice when really they want payback. This is why it is important for a party to retain a lawyer who will exercise independent professional judgment. This protects both the lawyer and the client from making shortsighted litigation decisions that are antithetical to their long term best interests. This is especially important in real estate and construction cases where so much is at stake.

photo credit: Albemarle Courthouse via photopin (license)

Share
Previous Post
Confidentiality Terms in Litigation Settlement
Next Post
San Bernardino Landlord Holds Controversial Open House

Search by Category

  • Community Associations
  • Construction & Renovation
  • Foreclosures
  • Land Use & Zoning
  • Landlord-Tenant
  • Litigation
  • Neighbor Relations
  • Uncategorized
Archive
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • October 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • November 2023
  • June 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • September 2017
  • July 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
Categories
  • Community Associations
  • Construction & Renovation
  • Foreclosures
  • Land Use & Zoning
  • Landlord-Tenant
  • Litigation
  • Neighbor Relations
  • Uncategorized
Pages
  • About Cowherd PLC
  • Blog Archive
  • Community Associations Law
  • Construction Law
  • Contact the Firm
  • Cowherd PLC – Representing the Interests of Property Owners
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Meet John C. Cowherd
  • Neighbor Law
  • Property Litigation
  • Search by Topic
  • Subscribe to Receive Emails
  • Testimonials
  • Website Disclaimer
  • Words of Conveyance

Copyright 2024. Cowherd, PLC. Website by Jonas Marketing

  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Construction Law
    • Community Associations Law
    • Neighbor Law
    • Property Litigation
  • About Cowherd PLC
    • Contact the Firm
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Meet John C. Cowherd
    • Website Disclaimer
  • Words of Conveyance Blog
    • Search by Topic
    • Subscribe to Receive Emails
  • Become A Client