HARALD SCHMIDT v. HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORPORATION, II, D/B/A HOUSEHOLD FINANCE CORP. OF VIRGINIA, 276 Va. 108

Summary

The borrower met with employees of the finance company whom the borrower later claimed forged documents and gave the borrower a mortgage with different terms than what the borrower believed from another lender. On appeal, the court found that the circuit court did not err in sustaining the demurrer of the contract rescission claim because the borrower did not assert any contract to which he and the finance company were parties, the circuit court could not restore the parties to the respective positions they occupied before the contract, and the borrower did not plead sufficient factual allegations to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment. The circuit court also did not err in sustaining the plea in bar because the borrower's claims for actual fraud and constructive fraud and violation of the Consumer Protection Act were time-barred under Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.01-243(A) and 59.1-204.1(A), respectively. The borrower also did not exercise due diligence under Va. Code Ann. § ...