Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge
Thomas K. Plofchan, Jr., Esquire
46308 Cranston Street, Suite 225
Sterling, Virginia 20165 W. Scott Greco, Esquire
1300 Old Chain Bridge Rd.
McLean, Virginia 22101 Gentlemen:
Complainant (Purchaser) seeks specific performance of a contract for the sale of a home owned by the Defendants (Sellers) and located in Loudoun County, Virginia. The contract provides for settlement on or before March 28, 2000. Were settlement not to take place by March 28, 2000, the contract further states that it is rendered void unless the closing date was to be extended to enable the Sellers to cure reported defects in title. Sellers were to undertake action to correct the defect within fifteen days of the receipt of the title report. If the defects were of a type that could not be remedied within ninety days after receipt of the title report by the Sellers, then the contract would be terminated and the deposit returned to the Purchaser.
The title report prepared in connection with the sale of the instant property disclosed an unreleased judgment against a predecessor in title to the seller. Left of record, this judgment renders the title unmarketable and uninsurable. It is a defect that could have been readily remedied within the ninety days set forth in the contract.
Based upon the evidence, the Court finds that the complainant accepted the contract upon the terms of the offer by the defendants. Purchaser was obligated to communicate his acceptance of the contract to the Sellers or their agent by the March 28, 2000. Purchaser signed the contract and delivered it to escrow agent designated in the contract of sale on the March 28, 2000. The escrow agent reported that he telephoned the attorney for the Sellers on that day and advised him that the contract had been accepted. Sellers' attorney testifies that he had no recollection of having received such a call. However, the evidence would support a conclusion that the memory of the escrow agent is superior on this point. Acceptance by the Purchaser was effectively communicated to the sellers on the March 28, 2000, the last date provided for in the contract when acceptance could be made. Under the terms of the contract the date of settlement was to be extended to remedy the defect in title. Rather than correct the defect in title, the Sellers notified the Purchaser of their desire to terminate the contract. The addendum prepared by Mr. Young does not constitute a counteroffer. As a result of the breach by the Sellers, Purchaser is entitled to have the Court specifically enforce the conveyance of the property on terms and conditions set by the court, and an award of reasonable attorney's fees as provided for in contract.
Reasonable attorney's fees in the instant case do not amount to those set out in the affidavit of counsel for the complainant. The issues that are determinative of this cause are those of notification of acceptance and defect in title. Limited testimony and discovery would be required as to these issues. Had not the parties indulged in litigating a host of other issues unnecessary to a decision in the instant case, the matter could have been resolved at only a fraction of the cost reflected in the billing documents. What amounts an attorney may feel constrained to charge his client in the pursuit of litigation do not automatically entitle the client to a dollar for dollar recovery against the opposing party. The Court does not explore the myriad of motives underlying the actions of counsel and client. Instead the Court must apply an objective standard in making its determination as to what is reasonable given the nature of the work performed and the time spent in producing the result obtained. Accordingly, the Court will award reasonable counsel fees to the complainant in the amount of $3,000.00.
Settlement in accordance with the terms of the contract shall occur on or before November 1, 2001. In the event complainant fails to settle on or before that date, the contract will be rendered void, the deposit returned, the award of counsel fees rescinded, and the bill for specific performance dismissed.
In the detailed review of the billing documents, the Court observed an entry designated "sham hearing" before a judge of this Court. The undersigned is at a loss to understand what this means. On the one hand it may describe a particular pleading while on the other, reflect contempt for the proceedings before the Court. An explanation from counsel is expected at the time of the submission of the decree.
Counsel for the complainant shall submit a decree consistent with this opinion to which the parties may note his exception.
Very truly yours,
Thomas D. Horne, Chief Judge