IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF RICHMOND
APRIL D. GALLOP
Plaintiff
vs.
CAMERON BAY HOMEOWNER’S
ASSOCIATION
Defendant
Case No.: CL1800208200
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO THE HEARING; NOTICE OF LACK SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION, AND NOTICE OF FRAUD
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, pro se, with this Notice of Objection to the Hearing and
Notice of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, and states as follows:
A. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
According to V.A. Code § 13.1-861, a person who disagrees with a decision made by a
Home Owner’s Association may apply for relief to the circuit court in the county or city in which
the principal office of the corporation is located. It is only in the event there is no principal office
that the case can be brought in the county or city in which the association’s registered office is
located.
“Jurisdiction . . . is the power to adjudicate a case upon the merits and dispose of it as
justice may require.” Shelton v. Sydnor, 126 Va. 625, 629, 102 S.E. 83, 85 (1920). The lack
of subject matter jurisdiction can be initially raised at any point during the proceedings,
including on appeal. Morrison v. Bestler, 239 Va. at 170, 387 S.E.2d at 756.2. “A defect in
subject matter jurisdiction cannot be cured by reissuance of process, passage of time, or
pleading amendment.” Id. at 170, 387 S.E.2d at 755. Further, “[w]ithout [subject matter]
jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7
Wall.) 506, 514 (1869). Once a court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, “the
only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”
Id. “The only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing
the cause.” Pure Presbyterian Church of Washington v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church
50, 817 S.E. 2d 547.
In the instant action, based on its Articles of Incorporation, the Cameron Bay
Homeowner’s Association is a Non-stock Corporation with the identity ID of 058055. Its
annual report states that the principal office is in the city of Richmond and the county of
Henrico. Therefore, the Chesterfield County lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
B. There is no consent to the hearing scheduled
According to the Chesterfield Circuit Court rules, cases should be cases should be set by
email through the legal assistant once mutually agreeable dates are obtained by counsel. See
Chesterfield Circuit Court Docketing Procedures/Case Scheduling information, pg. 13.
In the instant action, Plaintiff’s email auto response clarified dates after May 24, 2022.
However, the Attorney scheduled a hearing for April 14, 2022, prior to that date without mutual
agreement. Petitioner avers that this is blatant disrespect and lack of courtesy, and amounts to a
violation of the rules of professional conduct.
C. There is material misrepresentation
To maintain a claim for material misrepresentation and/or actual fraud, Plaintiffs bear the
burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the following elements: (1) a false
representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made intentionally and knowingly, (4) with intent to
mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled, and (6) resulting damage to the party misled.
Evaluation Research Corp. v. Alequin, 247 Va. 143, 148 (1994).
In the instant action, it appears the alleged Defendant’s Attorney makes a material
misrepresentation of being the legal representation for the Cameron Bay Homeowners’
Association. Notably, the meetings failed to meet quorum in the Annual meeting of the
members. They have failed to provide the proper and adequate Elections Records since the case
was filed. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe there are no proper or adequate Election Records
from the annual meeting of the members because the meeting failed to meet quorum. Therefore,
individual lot owners do not maintain the legal authority to sign, authorize contracts or utilize the
Corporation Insurance. It follows; the Attorney is improperly before the Court. This is in
violation of rules of professional conduct in regard to fairness to opposing part, candor towards
and the attorney’s duty to the court against concealment. Plaintiff has already suffered damage
consequential and incidental to the Attorney’s misrepresentation. Notably, Plaintiff has had to
bear with the Attorney’s dilatory tactics, which are an impediment to justice.
D. The Defendant is engaging in dilatory tactics
By definition, a dilatory delay is an unreasonable or bad faith delay attributable to the
moving party; it is not a delay resulting from good faith actions or one that is induced by the
opposing party. Emrich v. Emrich, 9 Va. App. 288, 387 S.E.2d 274 (1989).
In the instant action, the defendant is Subjecting the Plaintiff to dilatory tactics through
abuses of the motion process; and requesting unnecessary pleadings and hearings to make
defenses. Defendant does all these after failing to timely answer and object to venue as outlined
in Va. Code 8.01-264.
CONCLUSION
Given the foregoing, Plaintiff humbly makes the aforesaid objections. Plaintiff prays that
this Honorable Court considers the said objections, in the interest of justice.
Dated: _____
Respectfully submitted,
APRIL D. GALLOP
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
