Our Office LocationWeaver, Bennett & Bland, P.A.
196 N. Trade Street
Matthews, NC 28105
Map & Directions
Weaver, Bennett & Bland, P.A. – Case Results
DEFENSE TO THE CAVEAT OF A WILL
This case involving the Caveat of a Last Will and Testament was tried by Dave Bland in Cabarrus County Superior Court in September of 2008 and was heard in the North Carolina Court of Appeals in September of 2009. This case arose from a dispute between four brothers over the last will of their mother. The three older brothers wrongfully alleged undue influence by their younger brother in the execution of their mother’s will and further wrongfully alleged that their mother was mentally incompetent to execute her will. The will was successfully defended by the firm and the trial court’s decision was upheld on appeal.
Grace Waldon and Environmental Water Solutions, Inc. a North Carolina corporation v. Danny Burris, Water Resources Corp., DynPar LLC, Computer Sciences Corporation and DynCorp, 3:04-CV-00050 (October 2008).
This case was tried by Attorney Dave Bland to a jury verdict in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in October of 2008. The suit arose from an alleged conspiracy between the Defendant DynPar, LLC and a former employee of the Plaintiffs. The conspiracy sought to defraud the Plaintiffs out of the proceeds of a contract to operate the industrial waste water treatment plant on the Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The jury found in its verdict that the Defendant DynPar, LLC had conspired with the Defendant Dan Burris to facilitate a fraud being perpetrated on the Plaintiffs. The District Court entered a combined judgment against DynPar, LLC for $2,914,279.09. The Defendant DynPar, LLC is a limited liability company that was set up as a joint venture of its two managing members Parsons Corporation and DynCorp Technical Services, LLC (a wholly owned entity of Computer Sciences Corporation).
GRACE R. WALDON and ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SOLUTIONS. INC., a North Carolina Corporation, Plaintiffs v. DANNY L. BURRIS, JESSE JAMES WALDON, JR. and ENVIRONMENTAL WATER SOLUTIONS, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, Defendants, Union County, 01-CVS-1455; 172 N.C. App 594, 616 S.E.2d 693 (2005).
This case was tried by Attorney Dave Bland in Union County, North Carolina in September of 2003. The case arose out of a conspiracy between the client’s ex-husband and a former officer of the client’s company. The two individual Defendants planned and attempted to misappropriate the client’s majority ownership interest in a business that had obtained a lucrative contract to perform services for the federal government. The Union County jury, after a seven day trial, returned a record verdict in favor of the firm’s client. The jury verdict and judgment was upheld in two separate appeals to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Todd Creswell v. R.D. Abernathy; Rowan County, 05-CVS-1555, February 2007
This case arose from an automobile accident in Rowan County. The Plaintiff injured his hand in the accident and was unable to do his work installing bank vaults for six months because of numbness and lack of feeling in his right hand. The Defendant’s insurance company Allstate Insurance offered $ 3,500.00 before trial. Attorney Dave Bland tried the case to a Rowan County jury and obtained a $59,000.00 verdict for Mr. Creswell.
HEAD INJURY TO A TWO YEAR OLD CHILD ON CARNIVAL RIDE
Nena Mabe, GAL for Kamdon Evans v. Stillwell, et al, 04-CVS-1053, Gaston County (2007)
This case arose from a head injury to a two-year-old child. Kamdon was two years old and riding in a kiddie car at a local carnival when he stood up in the ride, fell out, and was run over by several other cars. Kamdon’s injuries were difficult to isolate and identify. Kamdon’s behavior changed, his verbal skills decreased, and he became easily agitated.
Once the family sought the firm’s help, Attorney Dave Bland was able to see that young Kamdon got the doctors and therapists he needed to isolate his deficits and to get him the help that will insure he has the chance to lead a normal and productive life. Instead of the meager $3,500.00 settlement that was offered by the insurance company initially, the firm brought a suit and negotiated a structured settlement prior to trial that guarantees Kamdon at least three million dollars over the course of his lifetime as he needs it.
WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS
Linda Naddeo, Administratrix for the Estate of Patricia Ann Teel v. Allstate Insurance Company, 139 N.C. App. 311, 533 S.E.2d 501 (2000)
Estate of Teel by Naddeo v. Darby, 129 N.C. App. 604, 500 S.E.2d 759 (1998)
This case arose out of a tragic death of a young girl who was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a drunk driver and resulted in two appeals to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Attorney Dave Bland represented the Estate of Teel, and Allstate Insurance Company initially refused to defend on behalf of its insured and allowed Attorney Bland to obtain a default judgment against Allstate’s insured. When the Estate obtained a default judgment, Allstate filed suit against the Estate of Patricia Teel seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have coverage and further sought to raise defenses under its policy with its insured. Attorney Dave Bland utilized the default judgment and collateral estoppel to block Allstate’s efforts to raise its policy defenses it should have raised in the original lawsuit. The Estate of Patricia Teel received $250,000.00.
Linda H. Griffin, Administrator of the Estate of Alvin Dean Griffin, Deceased v. F.T. Williams Company, Inc. and Erwin Ray Lasecki, Union County, 93-CVS-7872 (1995)
This case tried by attorney Dave Bland was a wrongful death action brought for the tragic death of a young man killed in a truck accident who left a wife and three young children. This case was tried to a jury in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. This case was settled while the jury was out deliberating. The case was resolved by a structured settlement which provided a minimum guaranteed payout of several million dollars and a continuous stream of income for the young man’s surviving family.
City of Charlotte v. Derek A. Lawson and wife, Carlyn M. Lawson, 05-CVS-4482, Mecklenburg County, November 2006
City Offer: $ 3,775.00 Jury
Jury Verdict: $ 52,400.00
This case arose from a condemnation action brought by the City of Charlotte against Derek A. Lawson and wife, Carlyn M. Lawson for taking of a permanent drainage easement and temporary construction easement across the Lawson’s property. Attorney Dave Bland tried this case to a Mecklenburg County jury and obtained a verdict for the Lawsons, which was over ten times what the City offered to pay.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LITIGATION
This case arose out of a dispute between the homeowners who resided in the Raintree Planned United Development and Club Corporation of America, Inc. who had a sixty year lease on the two championship 18 hole golf courses, club house and amenities. The case drew national attention with articles in Sports Illustrated, the New York Times, and other national news sources. The case spanned twelve years. Ultimately, the firm was able to force Club Corporation to turn over the two championship golf courses, the club house, and all amenities. The twelve-year legal battle was memorialized by an article written by the Honorable Kevin Dugan, United States Administrative Law Judge entitled Barbarians on the Green. The value of the property recovered for the homeowners in the planned community exceeded fifty million dollars.
Raintree Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Bleimann, 116 N C. App. 561, 449 S.E. 2d 13, (1994) rev 342 N. C. 159, 463 S.E. 2d 72 (1995)
This case was tried by Attorney Dave Bland in Mecklenburg County before a jury as an action by the homeowners association to enforce restrictive covenants in the Raintree Planned Unit Development and to require the homeowner to remove vinyl siding which was installed without the approval and over the objection of the architectural review committee. The jury found against the homeowner’s association and the North Carolina Court of Appeals in a unanimous decision affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The firm continued to fight for the right of the homeowners association to enforce its covenants and persuaded the Supreme Court to grant discretionary review of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to enter a directed verdict for the Plaintiff homeowners association.
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND TRADEMARK LITIGATION
Leonard Automatics v. Sussman, ST-C-88-100 (1990)
This case was tried by attorney Dave Bland in United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in the Statesville Division. The suit was a Lanham Act false claim and product defamation case, which took three weeks to try. The case involved a situation where an established competitor attempted to crush a new competitor in its marketplace by publishing a false “technical bulletin” about the Plaintiffs product to all of its potential customers in the industry. The length of the trial was a record for the Statesville Division and the verdict was the largest ever rendered by a jury in the Statesville Division. The jury awarded the firm’s client over $500,000.00 in actual and punitive damages.
ValuePest.com of America v. Larry Davidson et al. 3:06 cv-00507 (2006)
This case was brought by attorney Dave Bland in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of ValuePest.com of America, Inc. against one of its former franchisees for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and unfair trade practices. The case was settled and a judgment was entered by the Court which (1)prohibited the Defendants from using the ValuePest trademark, (2) ordered the Defendants to turn over a complete customer list to Plaintiff, (3) ordered Defendants to refrain from utilizing or making any offer similar to a program offered by ValuePest for a period of one year, (4) ordered Defendants to transfer all telephone numbers to ValuePest, and (5) finally ordered the Defendants to refrain from soliciting the business of any ValuePest customer for a period of two years.
Budget Pest Prevention, Inc, and Budget Pest Management, Inc. v. Security Pest, Inc., William J. Stover, Craig Gordon, and Val Wilson Termite Systems, Inc. Case No. 8:05-CV000240-JDW-TGW (2005)
This case was brought by attorney Dave Bland in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of Budget Pest Prevention, Inc. and Budget Pest Management, Inc. seeking injunctive relief for copyright infringement, damages for violations of the Lanham Act, damages for trademark infringement, damages for common law misappropriation, damages for common law unfair competition, and civil conspiracy. The case was settled by Defendants paying Plaintiffs a cash settlement for actual damages plus Defendants agreed to (1) refrain from using Plaintiffs copyrighted materials, (2) remove the logos from all of Defendants’ trucks, (3) refrain from using any mark confusingly similar to Plaintiffs logo, and (4) forward all telephone calls to Plaintiffs inquiring about the $399 service from the 2005 yellow page advertisement.
Brian Crutchfield & wife, Debbie Crutchfield v. Town & Country Ford. Inc. (1984)
This case brought by attorney Dave Bland in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina was an odometer fraud case where the Defendant dealership, Town & Country Ford, Inc. was accused of rolling back the mileage on a Fiat Spider sports car which had been involved in an accident with a school bus, repaired, and was sold as a new vehicle. The Defendant denied all wrongdoing, but the jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiffs on all issues and awarded $50,000.00 in punitive damages against Defendant Town & Country Ford. This was attorney Dave Bland’s first case in federal court and was, in 1984, the largest odometer fraud verdict in the United States.
Washburn v. Vandiver, 93 N.C. App. 657, 397 S.E. 2d 65 (1989)
This case was a case tried by Attorney Dave Bland in Mecklenburg County District Court against a used car dealer who rolled back the mileage on a truck he sold to the Plaintiffs. The case was tried by attorney Dave Bland to a jury verdict which found for the Plaintiff on all issues. The Court awarded treble damages for Plaintiff under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Statute, $1,500.00 under the Federal odometer statute (Vehicle Mileage Act). The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and held that the Defendant Vandiver was liable to the Plaintiff under each of the statutes violated.
Zhi Zhang v. Randy Salter d/b/a Dixieland Boats and Cars and Carolina Boat, Inc., Mecklenburg County, 99-CVS-7299 (2000)
This case was tried in Mecklenburg County North Carolina Superior Court by attorney Dave Bland in October of 2000. The case involved the sale of a Mitsubishi 3000 GT sports car which had been involved in serious collision which had not been disclosed to the purchaser. The Plaintiff obtained a verdict in his favor on all issues and the Court entered a judgment against the Defendants in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars.
In the past few years, Weaver, Bennett & Bland, P.A., has handled a number of medical malpractice and legal malpractice cases which involved extremely complex and difficult issues. Most of these cases were settled prior to trial and are now governed by confidentiality agreements which prevent the disclosure of the settlements or the identity of the parties.
Suffice it to say, that this firm has a record of taking on the largest and most powerful law firms and lawyers when our clients’ needs demand it. The legal profession has a duty to the public to police its own ranks. Weaver, Bennett & Bland P.A. has and will continue to carry out its obligation to our profession and to the public.
The firm has successfully brought meritorious claims against both hospitals and physicians when our clients have been injured by medical negligence. We have and will continue to utilize the top medical professionals in evaluating our clients’ cases to both assist our clients in evaluating their cases and to prevent the filing of unwarranted claims.
*The outcomes described above were based on the particular facts of each case. The outcome in any case is dependent upon the specific facts and circumstances of that case. The above information is provided for informational purposes and should not be viewed as a guarantee that we can obtain the same or similar results for you.