INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSNewport News, Virginia
Back to the record

Document text · Page 3 of 12

Seaview Apartments v. Newport News — opinion, 2009-24-1

Text from the approved public copy. Page numbers follow the PDF sequence.

Open Source Document

This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.

- 3 - of the balance forward (including any late fees) and current charges—less any payments. That total amount due was listed on the remittance slip at the bottom of the bill that was to be detached and returned with payment. Each bill listed the same account number for Seaview. The City representative explained that the system was “invoice-driven” and the City considered each month a separate transaction. She disagreed with the characterization of a customer account as “one long running account” and testified that the outstanding balance was included on each bill merely for informational purposes. Of the twenty-two bills issued for the twenty-two months of service, Seaview made six payments. None of those payment amounts matched the monthly charge for any of the periods at issue here. As payments were made, the City typically applied them to “the oldest debt first.” Although it “tried to work with [Seaview] on an installment plan,” one did not come to fruition. Seaview did not dispute the amount owed. Instead, it renewed its plea in bar, again raising its res judicata defense. The circuit court reconsidered its ruling on the plea in bar in light of the testimony presented. Ultimately, though, it denied the renewed plea. The court found that each invoice arose from a different billing period and separate instance of utility usage. Therefore, it reasoned, each unpaid bill represented a separate transaction or conduct independent of Seaview’s failure to pay the other bills. The court granted the City a judgment for $98,480.68 plus costs. ANALYSIS Seaview contends the circuit court erred by denying the plea in bar based on its ruling that each billing period represented a separate and independent transaction. It argues that the City engaged in impermissible claim-splitting and, as a result, that part of its claim was precluded by res judicata.
Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12)

Report a privacy or text-extraction issue through publication requests.