Successful cases handled by Brian V. Ebert, P.C. have included business matters both large and small, such as voiding a noncompete agreement which was unfairly limiting the range of locations where a dentist could establish a solo practice after leaving a group of dentists. Contact Brian V. Ebert, P.C., online to discuss your legal business concern.
Please note that every case is different, and the results obtained in a case depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. The results shown below do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future cases undertaken by this law firm.
A client who ran an auto body shop in a commercial condominium was faced with possibly losing his business when the condominium’s board sought to prevent him from using the parking areas of the condominium for customers’ cars awaiting work. When the condominium board refused to reverse its position that the body shop’s customers were not permitted to park their cars on condominium property and threatened to tow cars parked in connection with the body shop business, we went to court and obtained an injunction against the board’s enforcement of the towing. Plate v. Kincannon Place Condominium Unit Owners’ Association, 30 Va. Cir. 323 (Fairfax County 1993). After the injunction was obtained, the condominium board stopped trying to enforce the threatened towing, and a compromise was worked out that allowed the body shop to use a specified portion of the parking area in connection with its business.
A client who had failed to file his 1993 tax return until 1997 was denied his refund by the IRS. The IRS claimed that the client had failed to ‘file’ his return within three years of the due date. When a lawsuit was filed asserting that the client was owed his refund as the IRS had received the return within the statute of limitations by applying the “mailbox” provision (commonly referred to as ‘timely mailed is timely filed’), the IRS contended that provision only applied to the return if it had been mailed within the prescribed time frame in 1994. We believed the IRS’ own regulations defeated this argument. However, the U.S. District Court found in favor of the IRS, and an appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. While the appeal was pending, the IRS decided to change its position on application of the “mailbox” provision, and agreed to pay the refund and payment of a substantial portion of the client’s attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the lawsuit and appeal.
A client sold the assets of her direct mail advertising business, and took back an installment note from the buyers as part of the payment. When the note payments came due, the buyers refused to pay, claiming that the seller had defrauded them and breached the purchase and sale contract. When we filed a lawsuit to collect on the note, the buyers countersued for fraud and breach of contract. After a four-day trial, the jury returned its verdict in 90 minutes fully favorable to the seller, awarding her the amount of the note and dismissing the buyers’ claims. The judge later awarded the seller about 95% of the attorney’s fees she incurred in bringing the lawsuit and defending the buyers’ claims under the attorney’s fee provision of the note.
Other litigation cases handled by this firm include a dispute over the ownership of a multimillion-dollar information technology company, landlord-tenant disputes, suits for aid and direction by estates, and cases involving restrictive covenants in employment agreements and claimed breaches of fiduciary duties by former employees.