No fraud or unjust enrichment in home construction action

Where plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits paid for property and construction of a home, the court finds defendants did not violate the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and were not unjustly enriched by retaining plaintiffs’ deposits.

To prove fraud and therefore recover under the VCPA, a plaintiff must show a false statement, reliance on the statement and loss resulting from that reliance.

The record does not support a finding of fraud. “Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to review that plans, the knowledge and the experience to understand the proposed plans, yet continuously [chose] to proceed with construction. … [T]he customization changes requested by the Plaintiffs were accounted for in the construction plans.”

Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim fails as well. “[T]he liquidated damages clause provided in the contract was valid and thus Defendants were entitled to keep the deposits retained, as no unjust enrichment occurred.”

A provision for liquidated damages is appropriate if the contemplated actual damages when the contract is made are uncertain and difficult to determine. Those circumstances were present in this case when the contract was made and during the phases of construction.

The court finds for defendants on all claims.

Watts, et al. v. 350 Church Street, LLC, et al. CL-2016-8202, Nov. 19, 2019; Fairfax Cir. Ct. (Carroll). Jon F. Mains, John D. McGavin for the parties. VLW 019-8-108, 2 pp.