Judge Christopher Russell ruled on several motions filed in a lawsuit against The General’s Redoubt and its executive director Kamron Spivey in a court hearing last month.
The lawsuit, filed by O’Byrne Contracting Inc., alleges a breach of contract by The General’s Redoubt pertaining to unpaid bills for renovation work done at a property in Fancy Hill, and further alleges behavior by Spivey had created a hostile environment which resulted in O’Byrne Contracting being unable to continue to work while Spivey was living on the property.
Arguments were heard on three motions on Aug. 13, each motion filed by one of the parties involved in the suit.
The first motion, filed by Stan Barnhill, attorney for The General’s Redoubt, was a motion craving oyer, in which Barnhill argued that O’Byrne Contracting had not submitted the contract which was alleged to have been violated – or any evidence of any meeting of the minds – in its initial filing with the court.
The document it submitted as Exhibit A is both undated and unsigned, Barnhill argued, so it can’t be the final contract, and the filing also makes reference to contingencies and other stipulations that are not included in the document that was submitted in the initial filing, such as a process for change orders to the work that was referenced several times in the filing but is not referenced in the included document.
The purpose of the motion, Barnhill argued, was to get a copy of the final signed contract so that he and his clients could properly defend against any alleged breaches of the contract.
“We are entitled to those documents,” he said. “We have things that talk about a meeting of the minds, but do not have documentation to show a meeting of the minds.”
Michael Montgomery, the attorney for O’Byrne Contracting, argued that he and his client had “put forth facts sufficient to state a claim,” and that it was not the province of the court to rule on whether or not there was a meeting of the minds. Prior to Russell ruling on the motion, Montgomery offered to make all of the requests for payment and written change orders that were referenced in the initial filing – but were not included as exhibits – available to the defense as a possible solution to the defense’s concerns over not having sufficient documentation. Russell agreed to that solution and denied the motion.
Barnhill asked Russell if he was ruling that the document filed as Exhibit A in the suit was in fact the final contract and Russell said that he was not “making any findings of fact” regarding the contract, but was simply ruling that the plaintiff had provided sufficient facts to state their claim in the suit. Whether the contract filed with the suit was the final contract or had been breached by The General’s Redoubt will be matters for a jury to decide if the suit goes to trial.
Russell also ruled in Montgomery’s favor on a motion to quash a subpoena filed by Barnhill on the Bank of Botetourt asking the bank to produce all bank records for O’Byrne Contracting from February 2024 to the present. Montgomery argued that the subpoena was “overly broad” in its request and would result in information related to other projects O’Byrne is working on as well as potentially privileged information.
Barnhill argued that the purpose of the subpoena was to get more detailed financial records related to the renovation work done at Fancy Hill.
Russell acknowledged that that information would be relevant to the case, but agreed that the subpoena was too broad in its request and granted the motion to quash it.
The third motion argued in court on Aug. 13 was filed by Spivey’s attorney Joshua Johnston for demurs related to the allegations against Spivey, namely that he had interfered with the contract between O’Byrne Contracting and The General’s Redoubt through alleged behavior that created a hostile work environment for O’Byrne Contracting, and that there had been a conspiracy between Spivey and The General’s Redoubt to breach the contract.
Johnson argued that in both claims against Spivey, Montgomery had argued facts that make them legally impossible. He specifically noted that Spivey is a member of The General’s Redoubt and is not listed as a separate party in any contracts with O’Byrne Contracting. As a result, Johnson argued, Spivey cannot have legally interfered with the contract or conspired with The General’s Redoubt to breach the contract.
He went on to argue that Spivey was listed as a separate defendant due to a personal grievance between him and Elizabeth King, the president of O’Byrne Contracting, which was also discussed in detail in the filing, including an incident where Spivey had allegedly confronted King after she removed signs he’d placed on the property and had prevented her from leaving. Spivey has filed two countersuits against King for defamation related to comments she’s made in emails about him.
“This is a contract dispute between two entities,” Johnson argued in court on Aug. 13. “There’s no place for personal complaints with the executive director of one of those entities.”
Montgomery argued that Spivey’s behavior had interfered with the contract by creating an environment “so hostile that [O’Byrne Contracting] had to leave the project.”
Russell granted Johnson’s motion for demur, stating that he felt the complaint was “too bare-boned” in its recitation of the facts regarding Spivey’s role in the alleged dispute. He did grant Montgomery leave to amend the suit within 21 days of the entry of the order regarding the motion. As of yesterday afternoon, that order had not been entered.
Another hearing is scheduled for Oct. 1 for a different motion to quash a subpoena, this one filed by Rockbridge County attorney Herb Rubenstein through his attorney Creigh Deeds. The subpoena was filed by Johnson requesting any documents Rubenstein has related to a meeting he had with King regarding the case prior to her hiring Montgomery to represent her. Rubenstein has moved to quash the subpoena on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
