Virginia Lawyers Weekly VA Lawyers Weekly
A lawyer who bought a BMW and titled the car under the fictitious name “Ferris & Ferris PC,” which had not been registered with the State Corporation Commission as required by Va. Code § 59.1-69, is not barred from suing the defendant BMW dealer who allegedly assured the lawyer that driving the car from Fairfax to Richmond with a coolant leak would not damage the car’s engine.
According to defendants, the titled owner “Ferris & Ferris PC” is a separate entity from plaintiff Edward C. Ferris II, and thus Ferris lack standing. Defendants also argue that even if standing is present, Ferris’s claims are prohibited by Va. Code §§ 59.1-69 and 59.1-76, since Ferris failed to register the fictitious name “Ferris & Ferris PC.”
Notwithstanding Ferris’s contention that the fictitious name is exempt from Virginia’s registration requirement, Ferris properly registered the fictitious name “Ferris & Ferris PC” with the SCC on Sept. 8, 2010.
Ferris alleges defendants’ negligent advice resulted in damage to his property, the BMW. The issue here is whether he has an ownership interest in the BMW which entitles it to standing.
Defendants submitted a copy of the BMW’s title certificate, which identified “Ferris & Ferris PC” as the only titled owner. Defendants have established that “Ferris & Ferris PC” is the BMW’s owner under Virginia law, and thus the entity with standing. Ferris, however, claims it has standing as an owner of the BMW because it is the same entity as “Ferris & Ferris PC.”
The fact that Ferris never properly registered the fictitious name “Ferris & Ferris PC” before titling the BMW does not establish that Ferris and “Ferris & Ferris PC” are separate entities. The Virginia Code has specific provisions which delineate the consequences for failing to register a fictitious name, Va. Code §§ 59.1-59 and 59.1-76, and these provisions do not provide that an unregistered fictitious name should automatically be considered a separate entity from the underlying corporation. These provisions do not void any action taken under an unregistered fictitious name. Ferris’s failure to register the fictitious name “Ferris & Ferris PC” prior to 2010 is no bar to its current claim that it titled the car under the fictitious name. The court finds Ferris alleviated any non-registration issue when it properly registered the fictitious name on Sept. 8, 2010. Once Ferris properly registered the fictitious name “Ferris & Ferris PC,” this certified that Ferris is one in the same entity as “Ferris & Ferris PC.”
Ferris has standing to proceed in this case as owner of the BMW and defendants’ plea in bar on this ground is overruled.
The court also rejects defendant’s argument that Va. Code § 59.1-76 prohibits Ferris’s claims.
Because Ferris properly registered “Ferris & Ferris PC” on Sept. 8, 2010, the ban contained in Code § 59.1-76 is no longer applicable.
Ferris Law Offices PC, d/b/a Ferris & Ferris PC v. Sonic-Manhattan Fairfax Inc. d/b/a BMW of Fairfax (Thacher, J.) No. CL 2010-6854, Oct. 21, 2010; Fairfax Cir.Ct.; Richard C. Ferris II for plaintiff; Stephen H. Ratliff for defendant. VLW 010-8-203, 7 pp.
