Peter Demetriades v. Paul Bryant, Jr., No. 09-1951 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1951 PETER DEMETRIADES; MICHELE DEMETRIADES, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. PAUL DAVID BRYANT, JR.; SHARON K. BRYANT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00025-gmw-pms) Submitted: July 15, 2010 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 23, 2010 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter and Michele Demetriades, Appellants Pro Se. Edward G. Stout, BRESSLER, CURCIO & STOUT, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Peter court s order and Michele adopting the Demetriades report and appeal the district recommendation of the magistrate judge granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees Paul and Sharon Bryant. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Appellants and Appellees entered into a transaction in 2003 wherein Appellees agreed to convey, and Appellants agreed to purchase, agreement as a parcel 2100 of land Industrial described Park Dr., in the Bristol, purchase Tennessee. This address was inaccurate; the actual address of the property is 2100 Industrial Blvd., Bristol, Tennessee. later, Appellants breached the agreement by Several months failing to make payments on the purchase, and in January 2005, a Tennessee state court issued a judgment against them in the amount of their missed installment payments and for repairs of the premises. In February 2009, some four years after losing in Tennessee state court, Appellants commenced an action in the district court alleging that the erroneous address of the property in the purchase agreement constituted fraud on the part of Appellees under Virginia law. injunctive relief. They demanded monetary and The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on statute of limitations grounds, and the district court Appellants noted a timely appeal. 2 adopted that recommendation. This court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo. Howard v. Winter, 446 F.3d 559, 565 (4th Cir. 2006). judgment answers is to appropriate when interrogatories, the and pleadings, admissions on Summary depositions, file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice of law rules of the forum state. CACI Int l, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 566 F.3d 150, 155 (4th Cir. 2009). In Virginia, procedural rules are governed by the law of the forum state. 33, 34 fraud Jones v. R.S. Jones & Assocs., Inc., 431 S.E.2d (Va. 1993). in Virginia, The found two-year at Va. statute Code of Ann. limitations for § 8.01-243(A) is procedural, and therefore applies in this diversity action. * In fraud cases under Virginia law, the statute of limitations begins to run when the fraud was discovered, or when it could have reasonably been discovered through due diligence. Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-249(1). they did not discover the Thus, while Appellants claim that mistaken address until 2007, the record reveals that they had ample opportunity to notice the * We reject the Appellants contention that Virginia s fiveyear statute of limitations for breach of contract actions is applicable to their claim. 3 discrepancy as early as 2003, when they signed the purchase agreement. Because the street sign and address on the property itself indicate that the property was located on Industrial Blvd. and not Industrial Park Dr., a person exercising due diligence could have discovered the discrepancy no later than upon taking occupancy of the premises. The record is silent on exactly when appellants entered the premises, but they did so no later than September 2004, when they were told to vacate for failure to make payments under the purchase agreement. The two year statute of limitations therefore began to run no later than in September 2004, and Appellants did not commence this action in district court until 2009 well after the expiration of the Virginia statute of limitations for fraud cases. We have reviewed the record and find no basis for tolling or suspension of the statute of limitations under Virginia law. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
