A pair of lawsuits totaling several million dollars have resulted from a dispute between The General’s Redoubt (TGR) and a local contracting company.
The first suit, filed in February by O’Byrne Contracting Inc. (OCI), alleges a breach of contract by failing to pay for renovation work done by OCI at Fancy Hill, a historic mansion recently purchased by TGR. The suit also lists now-Executive Director Kamron Spivey as a codefendant, alleging a conspiracy between Spivey and other leaders of TGR to create a situation that would result in OCI – and its president, Elizabeth O’Byrne King – being unable to complete the work, and for torturous interference with the contracted labor.
In total, OCI is seeking $2 million in damages from TGR ($500,000 for each of two counts of breach of contract and two counts of ‘unjust enrichment’), as well as a $310,151 mechanic’s lien levied against the property based on the unpaid bills. OCI is also seeking $1 million in damages from Spivey for the alleged conspiring and torturous interference.
The second suit is a defamation suit which Spivey filed against King on April 9. In his suit, Spivey alleges that King – either knowingly or recklessly – made false allegations against him on two separate occasions in emails to members of TGR’s leadership with the intent of hurting his standing within the organization. Spivey is asking to be awarded damages of “greater than $750,000” as well as punitive damages of $350,000.
As of Tuesday, no court dates have been scheduled in the defamation suit, but a pre-trial hearing regarding a motion to quash a subpoena in the original suit has been scheduled for Aug. 13.
Lawsuits From OCI’s Viewpoint
In the initial suit, OCI included a timeline of events.
After TGR purchased Fancy Hill in 2023, the organization began the process of working to renovate the building with the goal of turning it into the organization’s headquarters.
In late January 2024, a 15page collection of drawings labeled “not for construction” were put together by an architect detailing the designs of the work TGR wanted. Those drawings were sent to OCI in February with the request that OCI “provide pricing for the entire renovation based on this set of drawings.” Later that same month, OCI entered into a $85,800 contract with TGR to replace the windows at Fancy Hill.
Work on the windows began in March of 2024. On March 22, OCI presented a preliminary budget for the renovation of $1,521,468, split evenly between the design and construction costs. According to the suit, that budget was approved by TGR by mid-April, with the preliminary drawings for the renovation being completed and issued on April 30. TGR and OCI entered into a contract for the full renovation of Fancy Hill in May 2024 based on the drawings from January (the ones labeled “not for construction”) and the preliminary $1.5 million budget. According to the suit, both parties “anticipated that the entire contingency amount would be used throughout the course of the project” and that OCI “never assured TGR that any contingency amount would be credited back to TGR.”
The project was divided into three phases, with OCI hired to complete all three. The first phase was for the renovation of the parts of the building that would be used as office space for TGR. The second phase was for the public areas of the building and the attic, and the third phase was for the residential part of the building and the basement.
John Lane, a member of TGR’s board of directors, was selected as the project manager and served as the primary liaison between OCI and TGR. Lane was responsible for reviewing expense reports related to the project, and throughout the course of 2024, TGR paid the bills on time.
Lane also reviewed change orders submitted by OCI for elements of the project that had either not been specifically budgeted or for differences in cost from the preliminary budget. Throughout 2024, a procedure was developed where OCI would submit change orders to Lane who would sign off on them and report back to the project committee and board of directors. OCI noted in its suit that TGR had “at no point during the project” requested that any change orders be printed and signed by both parties prior to approval.
In July 2024, TGR “unilaterally changed one of the underlying material terms of the contract between the parties,” the suit alleges, when it hired Spivey to serve as the organization’s campus director and research fellow. The change to the terms of the contract came about due to Spivey moving into Fancy Hill, despite the fact that during initial “pre-construction and pre-contract discussions,” TGR had “assured” OCI that there would not be a resident at Fancy Hill during the construction.
Spivey taking up residence at Fancy Hill “created unanticipated additional improvements and related costs” that were not included in the original drawings, such as air-conditioning units and internet, as well as continuous power and water for the residence and “availability and access” to the washing machine and dryer in the building’s basement, the suit alleges. OCI addressed the issues, but claims that the new conditions that TGR “insisted upon … became more and more problematic as Spivey became more and more comfortable within his residence at Fancy Hill.”
Spivey was given the role of owner’s representative for liability issues, but, according to the suit, was not made a member of TGR’s construction committee and was “never given the authority to direct OCI’s work on the project or request, authorize, approve, or request changes for any work by OCI.”
Other than the unexpected change of having Spivey living on-site, no specific problems were listed in the suit that hindered construction of the project throughout the remainder of 2024. According to the suit, TGR also made regular payments on the bills for the project during that time. By early January of 2025, the work on the first phase of the project had been “substantially completed.” It was after that, the suit alleges, that the project “took an odd turn.”
According to the suit, during a walkthrough inspection on Jan. 10, Spivey began making “verbal and written threats” toward King and other OCI employees and contractors. This behavior from Spivey, the suit alleges, “continued throughout the remainder of the project.” Several complaints were made to Lane regarding Spivey’s behavior, and Lane “presumably … attempted to prevent Spivey’s abuse.” If so, the suit continued, Spivey ignored Lane’s instructions as he continued to interact with King and other OCI employees and contractors “in an abusive and threatening manner.”
The suit doesn’t list many specific incidents of Spivey allegedly behaving this way. The one incident that is mentioned occurred on May 8, 2025, and resulted in King calling 911 “in light of a concern that she might be physically harmed by Spivey.”
In an email to Lane that day – which was included as an exhibit in Spivey’s defamation suit – King explained that the incident had begun when she removed a pair of signs that Spivey had placed around the on-site dumpster that were “blocking access to the dumpster.” The signs, she said in the email, had a photo Spivey had taken of some beer bottles and cans that had been in a bag of “personal trash” that one of the OCI employees had put in the dumpster. According to the email, Spivey had entered the dumpster, opened the bag, took the bottles and cans and “laid them on the ground, outside of the dumpster, and took a picture.” He then had signs printed that read “Alcohol on site will not be tolerated” with the photo.
The signs, King said in the email, were “within two feet of the dumpster and were in the construction work area” so she removed them and put them in her vehicle because they “were a distraction and it was trash within the construction zone.” After she moved the signs, she said she attempted to leave but Spivey “began yelling at me and kept walking toward me after I was in my vehicle.” She said that he stood in front of her vehicle and would not move, describing him as ranting and noting that he was “video taping the incident.” She eventually rolled down her window and asked him to move, which he “refused” to do, at which point King called 911.
“It is not safe for me to be at Fancy Hill,” King wrote in the email. “This project cannot be completed without me going to Fancy Hill, monitoring progress, directing and coordinating work onsite. I have told you before how uncomfortable [Spivey] makes me and how he personally insults me and generally attempts to intimidate me. TGR has done nothing to stop [his] bad behavior.”
Lane resigned as project manager on May 16. According to the suit, he told King of his resignation in an email and added “I have thin hope that comments in my resignation letter may create an opportunity for a more orderly and civil business separation between TGR and OCI.” Neither a copy of that email or his resignation letter were included as exhibits in the suit.
OCI stopped working on the project on May 17. At that point, the first phase had been completed and the second phase was well underway, but the renovation was not completed.
In the time between those incidents with Spivey, the suit alleges that TGR made an effort to change the invoicing and payment procedures that had been in place. Specifically, OCI claims that TGR demanded “copies of all receipts, invoices and other cost documentation for OCI direct costs, vendor invoices and subcontractor costs for TGR to review, including a breakdown of subcontractor hours and subcontractor materials.” OCI claims that it wasn’t possible to provide the information that TGR was seeking because the project had been budgeted as a fixed-cost project, and the information TGR had not been recorded and was not available.
Shortly after, TGR stopped paying OCI. A payment request dated April 30 totaling $217,960, of which TGR was to pay $207,062, was not fulfilled. Additionally, two change orders – one for $46,783 and one for $21,850 – also were not paid.
After OCI stopped working on the project on May 17, the suit continues, Elizabeth “Barry” Brown, another member of the construction committee, issued a letter dated May 21 which accused OCI of abandoning the project and “performing substandard work.” As evidence of abandonment of the project, Brown cited the removal of the dumpster and other equipment from the site. She also stated in the letter that “TGR will not permit OCI on the premises” of Fancy Hill.
King sent a response to the letter, explaining that the dumpster had been full, and it and the other equipment were moved to “allow backfilling at the completed rear patio and smooth out the area the dumpster occupied,” and that neither of those thing constituted abandonment of the project. Additionally, King requested an itemized list of what work was “substandard” and needed to be redone, adding that “we are willing and able to correct any deficiencies and eagerly await the opportunity to finish the project.” TGR did not send a list of what work needed to be redone.
OCI kept a port-a-john at the site through the end of May of 2025 as they “intended to complete phase two of the project after receiving payment” for the order issued at the end of April. Another payment order was submitted to TGR on May 21 for $18,402, which was also not paid. The application for payment also included a credit for $173,315 – based on values included in the initial budget – for work that TGR “did not permit OCI to complete.” OCI requested that TGR review the credit request, but never received a response from TGR.
On Aug. 29, 2025, OCI was granted a mechanic’s lien against the property for $301,526 for the value of the outstanding bills. That amount, along with an additional $8,625 in outstanding costs, brings the total amount in outstanding payment from TGR to $310,151.
Spivey, TGR Respond
On March 20, Spivey, through his attorney Joshua Johnson, filed a response to the allegations of conspiring with TGR and torturous interference of the contract.
In it, he argues that OCI “fail(s) to state a case” against Spivey on the conspiracy complaint due to Spivey being an employee of TGR when the alleged conspiracy occurred. He goes on to argue that, even if OCI intends to argue that Spivey acted outside of his assigned role, they still offer no facts “showing an agreement, concerted action, or casual nexus between Mr. Spivey’s alleged conduct and the alleged injury causing decisions OCI contributes to TGR, Lane, Brown, or TGR’s executive committee.”
The response goes on to argue that a conspiracy would require an agreement beforehand, not simple approval of Spivey’s actions, as OCI alleges in its suit.
“A conspiracy requires a combination formed in advance of the conduct complained of, not a ratification after the fact,” he argued.
As for the torturous interference claim, Johnson reiterated his assertion that there is no evidence offered in the suit that Spivey’s behavior “caused or brought about the decisions OCI identifies as its injury,” specifically the decisions by TGR regarding payment and contract decisions.
TGR, through its attorney Stan Barnhill, filed several responses to the claims against it. On the claim regarding the lien, Barnhill filed a special plea, arguing that the lien claim is invalid due to it being granted more than 90 days after the final day of work being done on the project. In the plea, he cites May 15 as the final day work was done, and notes the date of the application of the lien being Aug. 28.
On the breach of contract claims, he argued that OCI failed to produce evidence by not including the referenced payment requests and change orders as evidence along with the contract, and that the contract it did include was “undated and unexecuted,” and thus the suit included no “naturally executed contract or any other writing that shows a meeting of the minds regarding the material of the contract.”
Barnhill also argued that OCI had performed work in phase two of the project that had “allegedly justified [a] change order,” which had been beyond the scope of the contract and would have resulted in additional costs, and that the work was done before the change order was submitted to TGR.
Barnhill also filed a motion requesting OCI produce “all writing that it maintains constitutes the contract [and] all writings that OCI claims constitute change orders including documentation of material cost.
“OCI cannot place blinders on the court and deprive TGR of sufficient allegations to permit a proper answer to the complaint,” he argued.
Additionally, OCI’s attorney, Michael Montgomery, filed a motion to quash a subpoena from TGR to the Bank of Botetourt requesting bank records for OCI from Feb. 1, 2024, to the present, including but not limited to “monthly deposit slips, cancelled checks and wire transfers.” The subpoena, he argued, was “overly broad” and “specifically seeks the production of financial documents that are entirely unrelated to the issues of liability and damages in this matter.”
Defamation Alleged
On April 9, Spivey filed a separate lawsuit against King, alleging defamation and asking for damages of at least $1 million.
In the filing, he cited two specific statements he claims that King had made “intentionally or knowingly or with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false,” and that he had, as a result of said statements, “suffered injury to his personal and professional reputation, humiliation, embarrassment and harm to his standing with TGR leadership and others associated with the Fancy Hill project.”
In the suit, Spivey acknowledges that his title during the period alleged in the suit was not executive director as it is now (he was promoted to that title in August of 2025), but campus director and research fellow. In that role, he claims, his duties included “interacting with contractors vendors and owners’ representatives and TGR leadership regarding access, scheduling, work areas, billing, payment applications, change orders, project control and site operations.”
In early 2025, Spivey acknowledges that OCI and TGR were engaged in “contract disputes” in relation to the Fancy Hill project. That dispute, he claims, created tension between himself and King and gave King “a motive to discredit [him] with TGR leadership,” which she did in the form of a pair of defamatory statements.
The first is in the email King sent to Lane following the incident on May 8, 2025. In it, King stated that she was “held captive by Kamron.” In addition to Lane, King copied TGR President Steve Robinson and Andrew King, an employee of OCI. Spivey cites this as the first incident of defamation, due to the claim carrying a “provably false factual connotation.” Spivey denies her claim that he held her captive.
“It was not loose rhetoric, pure opinion or hyperbole,” the suit argued. “Whether [Spivey] physically blocked, detained, restrained, or unlawfully prevented [King] from leaving is capable of being proved true or false.”
The second incident cited as defamation occurred in an email exchange on May 14, 2025. In response to an email from Brown regarding a scheduled pest-control visit to the Fancy Hill property, King said that OCI personnel would “leave the work area and wait in their work vehicles until Mr. Spivey had left,” and that TGR would be charged for the time while they were waiting. King then reiterated her claims that Spivey had made the work place unsafe and TGR had “done nothing” to remedy the situation.
Robinson responded to that email, asking King for the basis of her “unsafe work space” claim and specifically asked if Spivey had “threatened bodily harm or struck anyone.” King replied to Robinson simply saying, “Yes, he has,” with no further clarification.
Spivey claims that the response implies that he has either threatened someone, physically struck someone, or both, and he denies all three claims. He further argues that King “knew at the time she intentionally and knowingly made the false statement” that the accusation was false. Spivey also noted that Robinson had copied him on the email in which he questioned King, but King did not copy him on her reply. In doing so, he argues, she “published the accusation to third-party recipients outside [his] participation in that reply exchange.”
No response has been filed to the suit as of Tuesday afternoon.
