William Hanback v. DRHI, Incorporated

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01789-TSE-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999806707].. [15-1434]

Appeal: 15-1434

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1434

WILLIAM HANBACK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DRHI, INC.; D.R. HORTON, INC.,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-01789-TSE-JFA)

Argued:

March 22, 2016

Decided:

April 28, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and Max O. COGBURN,
Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of
North Carolina, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Stephen Patrick Pierce, SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY,
PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Jon Franklin Mains, JON
F. MAINS & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees.
ON
BRIEF: J. Chapman Petersen, SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY,
PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1434

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
William Hanback commenced this action against DRHI, Inc.,
for breach of a contract with which he sold DRHI a 2.14-acre
parcel of land in Fairfax, Virginia.

He seeks a declaratory

judgment and $350,000 in damages.
The parties closed on the land contract in 2004, with DRHI
paying Hanback $400,000 for the 2.14-acre parcel, a price based
on the fact that 5 lots had been approved by the City of Fairfax
for

the

parcel’s

development.

When

DRHI

later

purchased

an

adjacent parcel of land, it reconstituted its development plan
to include the two parcels and thereby obtained City approval
for a total of 15 lots on the combined parcels -- 5.5 lots on
the

original

2.14-acre

parcel

and

9.5

lots

on

the

adjacent

parcel -- which amounted to 5 more lots than would have been
approved for the parcels separately.
In
parcel

his
that

complaint,
he

sold

to

Hanback
DRHI

contends
in

2004

development of these 5 additional lots.
alleges

that

the

2.14-acre

parcel

he

that

the

directly

2.14-acre

enabled

the

Stated otherwise, he

sold

permitted

DRHI

to

obtain a “bonus density” of 5 additional lots on the combined
parcels.

Accordingly, he seeks compensation for the additional

5 lots in the amount of $70,000 for each lot.
The district court dismissed Hanback’s breach-of-contract
claim, concluding that “nowhere in the . . . Contract is there a
2

Appeal: 15-1434

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

provision requiring that [DRHI] compensate [Hanback] based on
lots

built

on

subsequently-acquired

adjacent

property.”

We

agree and therefore affirm.
The land contract between Hanback and DRHI provided that
“[Hanback]

is

the

property,”

which

owner

DRHI

of

“is

2.14

acres

desirous

of

of

fee

simple

acquiring,”

real

and

that

“[Hanback] agrees to sell to [DRHI] [and] [DRHI] agrees to buy
from

Hanback

the

Property.”

The

contract

continued,

“the

Purchase Price for the Property shall be $70,000.00 per approved
lot with a minimum of 6 lots.

If only 5 or fewer than 5 lots

are approved, the Purchase Price shall be $400,000 for the 2.14
acres.”
take

Finally, the contract provided that “[s]ettlement shall

place

within

thirty

days

after

approval

of

final

subdivision plans by the City of Fairfax or twelve months after
execution of this Contract whichever occurs first.”

Following a

state-court order granting specific performance, settlement took
place in 2004, at which time Hanback transferred the deed to the
2.14-acre parcel to DRHI and DRHI paid Hanback $400,000 for the
property

based

on

the

5

lots

that,

at

that

time,

had

been

approved.
While

the

contract

did

indicate

that

the

price

for

the

2.14-acre parcel would be based on the number of lots approved
by the City of Fairfax at the time of settlement, even under the
redevelopment

plan

approved

by
3

the

City

in

2007

and

the

Appeal: 15-1434

Doc: 35

Filed: 04/28/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

subdivision plan approved by the City in 2010, no more than 5.5
lots were ever approved for the 2.14-acre parcel.
or

more

were

never

approved

for

that

Since 6 lots

parcel,

the

price

established by the contract for the 2.14-acre parcel remained
$400,000, a sum that had been fully paid at the closing in 2004.
In arguing that he is entitled to compensation “for the
bonus density his land permitted,” Hanback concedes that the
“parties certainly did not specifically address ‘bonus density’
in the 2000 contract.”

But he contends nonetheless that “[the

parties] clearly expressed that payment was [to be] based on the
number of lots ‘permitted’ and/or ‘approved,’” with $70,000 to
be paid for each additional lot.

He fails to address, however,

the fact that he sold DRHI only the 2.14-acre parcel and that,
at most, only 5.5 lots were ever approved on that parcel.

The

additional 9.5 lots approved in the final subdivision plan were
located on the adjacent parcel, which was not the subject of the
land contract between Hanback and DRHI.

The contract between

Hanback and DRHI specifically defines the 2.14-acre parcel as
“the Property” subject to the contract, and the “purchase price
and

payment”

provision

“for the 2.14 acres.”

expressly

concerns

the

purchase

price

Nowhere in the contract is any adjacent

parcel or “bonus density” mentioned.
Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

ruling

that

Hanback failed to state a claim for breach of the land contract
4

Appeal: 15-1434

Doc: 35

between

him

Filed: 04/28/2016

and

DRHI

when

Pg: 5 of 5

he

claimed

compensation

for

lots

approved on an adjacent parcel that he never owned and that was
never mentioned in his contract with DRHI.
therefore,

Hanback’s

challenge

of

We need not reach,

the

district

court’s

alternative ruling that his breach-of-contract claim is barred
by the applicable statute of limitations.
With this conclusion, we also affirm the district court’s
dismissal

of

Hanback’s

complaint

transactional

Hanback’s

claim

asked

history

of

for

the
the

a

declaratory
to

court
dispute

judgment.
the

assess

between

the

full

parties,

including the effect of related state-court judgments, and to
declare his rights to “the amount owed to [him] . . . for the
bonus

density

[DRHI]

obtained

using

the

[2.14-acre

parcel].”

But this is exactly what he sought in his breach-of-contract
claim,

which

the

district

court

properly

dismissed.

A

declaratory judgment therefore would serve no “useful purpose in
clarifying

and

settling

the

legal

relations

in

issue.”

Centennial Life Ins. Co. v. Poston, 88 F.3d 255, 256 (4th Cir.
1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also
Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct.
843, 849 (2014) (recognizing that the Declaratory Judgment Act
is only “procedural” and does not create “substantive rights”).
The judgment of the district court is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
5