IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA RECORD NO: ___________________

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Janice Wolk Grenadier Appellant, v. ILONA ELY FREEDMAN GRENADIER HECKMAN And GRENADIER INVESTMENT CO, LTD, And DAVID MARK GRENADIER Appellees, APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA - CASE # CH010654 REPLACEMENT PETITION FOR APPEAL (RULE 5:17)

Janice Wolk Grenadier 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, VA 22301 703-623-9655 pro se

Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esquire Grenadier Heckman Starace Duffett 649 South Washington Street Alexandria, Va 22314 703-683-9000 Counsel for / pro se - Appellee - Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman & Grenadier Investment Co. LTD till approximately May 28, 2010 Benard J. Dimuro, Esquire Hillary J. Collyer, Esquire John M. Tran, Esquire DiMuroGinsburg 908 King Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-684-4333 Counsel for - Appellee - Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman & Grenadier Investment Co. LTD from approximately May 28, 2010 Michael J. Wiser, Esquire 510 King Street, Suite 416 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-836-7003 Counsel for Appellee David Mark Grenadier

SUBJECT INDEX Assignment of Error Question Presented Nature of the Case and Material Proceedings in the Court of Trial Parties Statement of Facts Argument
2

Conclusion Certificate TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: STATUES: Va. Code 17.1 105(b)

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The trial court of the Circuit Court of Alexandria erred by failing to follow Va. Code 17.1-105(b) after all judges recused themselves (or were required to recuse themselves) from this matter because of personal relationships between Defendants and the judges. Instead of having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoint an out of Circuit Judge to hear the case, the Circuit Court of Alexandria (or its clerk) selected a judge themselves. Appellants motions challenging the appointment of the out of Circuit judges were denied and judgment ultimately entered against her. QUESTION PRESENTED Question: Did the Circuit Court of Alexandria err by appointing an out of Circuit judge, instead of have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoint an out of Circuit judge pursuant to Va.Code 17.1.105(B), when all judges of the Circuit Court of Alexandria recused themselves (or were required to recuse themselves) because of relationships between Defendants and the Judges. Answer: Yes. Thus, the judgment against Plaintiff should be vacated and the matter remanded for trial before a new out of Circuit judge appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
4

PARTIES 1) Plaintiff (Appellant) Janice Wolk Grenadier a 50% Owner of 28 East Bellefont Avenue, Alexandria of which the other 50% is owned by Grenadier Investment Co. Ltd. (GIC). She is divorced from David Mark Grenadier. 2) Defendant (Appellee) David Grenadier is a 49% owner of GIC. He is the stepson of Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman and the son of the late Judge Albert Grenadier of the Circuit Court of Alexandria. 3) Defendant (Appellee) - Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman is a 51% owner of GIC. She is a licensed attorney in Virginia and was the wife of the late Judge Albert Grenadier 4) Defendant (Appellee) - Grenadier Investment Co. Ltd (GIC) a Real Estate Investment Co. owned 51% by Ilona Grenadier Heckman and 49% by David Grenadier. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff Janice Wolk Grenadier (Plaintiff) filed claims in the Circuit Court of Alexandria (the Circuit Court) in September, 2007 against Defendants related to 28 East Bellefont Avenue, Alexandria VA (the Property) owned 50% by Plaintiff and 50% by GIC (which was owned by Defendants Ilona and David ). Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to pay their fair share of expenses related to the Property. Plaintiff claimed

damages of approximately $300,000, including interest compounded at 10%. Defendants Ilona and David were related to the late Judge Grenadier of the Circuit Court. At the time that Plaintiff filed suit, the judges of the Circuit Court were Judge Donald Haddock, Judge Lisa Kemler, and Judge John Kloch. On

or about September 22, 2007, Plaintiff was informed by Diane Fisk, the Court administrator, that all three judges had recused themselves, i.e. (1) Judge Kemler was a close friend of and grew up with Defendant David; (2) Judge Haddock was a personal friend of Defendant Ilona; and (3) Judge Kloch had a personal relationship with Defendant Ilona and her late husband, Judge Grenadier.1 The matter was assigned to out of Circuit Court judges who were not appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as early as December, 2007 when out of Circuit Court Judge Thomas A. Fortkort denied Plaintiffs motion for a default. In April, 2008, Judge Kloch retired and was replaced by Judge Dawkins who was appointed on April 24, 2008 and sworn in on June, 2008. In July, 2008, out of Circuit Court Judge Brown denied Plaintiffs motion for a jury trial. After the decision, Defendant Ilona informed Plaintiff that

Judge Kloch denied Plaintiffs motion for default on September 12, 2007 prior to recusing himself.
1

Judge Brown was her friend. This was never disclosed to Plaintiff before Judge Browns decision. Judge John McGrath, an out of Circuit Court judge, was chosen by the Circuit Court to hear the matter in May, 2008. Judge McGrath dismissed the case in September, 2008.2 In June, 2010, Plaintiff learned of Va.Code 17.1.105(B). On July 13, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion to set aside all decisions from September 17, 2007 forward because the out of Circuit Court judges were improperly appointed. Plaintiff filed an addendum on August 4, 2010. Judge Kloch denied Plaintiffs post-trial motion on August 11, 2010 (even though he had recused himself in 2007 and retired in April, 2008) and then recused himself and immediately vacated his decision on August 12, 2010. Thereafter, Judge Dawkins denied Plaintiffs post trial motion on or about October 20, 2010 even though in June, 2010 Plaintiff was informed by Diane Fisk that all judges of the Circuit Court had recused themselves.

In his August 12, 2010 decision vacating his decision and recusing himself, Judge Kloch disclosed a close business relationship with Judge McGrath through Judicial Solutions, a private dispute resolution company based in Harrisonburg. Needless to say, this creates the inference that Judge Kloch may have been involved in the selection of Judge McGrath the exact type of appearance of impropriety that Va.Code 17.1.105(B) is designed to avoid, i.e. recused judges (or judges who should be recused) selecting their successors instead of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
7

ARGUMENT Supreme Court Rule 17.1-105(B) provides: If all the judges of any court of record are so situated in respect to any case, civil or criminal, pending in their court as to render it improper, in their opinion, for them to preside at the trial, unless the cause or proceeding is removed, as provided by law, they shall enter the fact of record and the clerk of the court shall at once certify the same to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who shall designate a judge of some other court of record or a retired judge of any such court to preside at the trial of such case.

In September, 2007, Plaintiff was informed that all judges of the Circuit Court recused themselves because of their close relationship with opposing parties and counsel. Nonetheless, as early as December, 2007, the Circuit Court appointed various out of Circuit judges itself to adjudicate the matter, including Judge McGrath to hear the case, instead of following Rule 17.1-105(b). Thus, this Judge lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should have taken responsibility to appoint a judge to hear the case in September, 2007. Plaintiff learned of this in June, 2010 and preserved this point in her July 13, 2010 motion and August 4, 2010 addendum filed before the Circuit Court. Here, not only has the Rule been violated, but the Circuit Court acted with impropriety and created the appearance of impropriety by having
8

judges who recused themselves (or were required to recuse themselves) because of personal relationships with Defendants select the out of circuit judge, instead of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court making the selection. Even, assuming, for argument, the Judges did not formally recuse themselves, if they were required to recuse themselves, they were not permitted to circumvent the procedures of Rule 17.1-105(b) by selecting an out of Circuit Court judge themselves. This violation is particularly egregious when the interests of a per se party suing an attorney are at stake.

CONCLUSION The petition for appeal should be granted. All prior decisions and the judgment against Plaintiff should be vacated and the Chief Justice should reassign the case for trial before a Judge outside of the Circuit Court. Janice Wolk Grenadier Pro se Appllant 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 703-623-9655 jwolkgrenadier@aol.com

10

CERTIFICATE Pursuant to Rule 5:17, I hereby cerify that The appellant is Janice Wolk Grenadeir pro se 15 West Spring Street Alexandria, Virginia 22301 703-623-9655 jwolkgrenadier@aol.com

The appellee is Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esquire & Grenadier Investment Co Ltd Represented by Grenadier Anderson Starace & Duffett 649 South Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703-683-9000 Around May, 2010 the following counsel started representing Ilona Ely Freedman Grenadier Heckman, Esq and Grenadier Investment Co Ltd Dimuro Ginsburg PC Benard J. Dimuro, Esquire 908 King Street Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia, 22314 703-684-4333 The appellee is David Mark Grenadier represented by: Michael J. Weiser, Esquire 510 King Street Suite 416 Alexandria, Virginia 22314

11

A copy of this Petition for Appeal was hand delivered to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Virginia on January 20 , 2011 and mailed to counsel for Appellees.

Appellant desire to state orally to a panel of this Court the reasons why the Petition for Appeal should be granted and wish to do so in person. This 20th day of January, 2011.

Janice Wolk Grenadier

12