The Court of Appeals handed down its ruling in the latest episode in the ongoing Galiotos saga earlier this week. I can’t really improve on the summary that the panel provides in its introduction:

These five appeals arise from a longstanding dispute among three brothers—Stavros (“Steve”), Paul, and Tasos Galiotos—over the division of business assets held in trusts for which the brothers are both co-trustees and equal beneficiaries. In Galiotos v. Galiotos, 83 Va. App. 206 (2024) (Nos. 0068-24-1 & 0077-24-1), we affirmed the chancellor’s final order that (i) required a pro-rata distribution of each asset and (ii) rejected a proposal by Steve and Paul for a non-pro-rata distribution that the chancellor found unfair to Tasos. To stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, the chancellor required security of $1 million and imposed conditions to protect the parties’ interests and the trust assets that Steve and Paul continued to manage as majority co-trustees.

After Steve posted the $1 million security, however, Paul insisted that he was not bound by the stay conditions because he was not asking for the judgment to be stayed as to him. The trial court issued an order to clarify that the stay conditions applied to all three brothers. Paul appeals that ruling, arguing that the trial court lost jurisdiction to extend the stay conditions to him. The trial court subsequently entered four contempt orders against Paul for continuing to disobey the stay conditions. Paul separately appealed each of those contempt orders.

We find appellate jurisdiction lacking in two of the appeals but affirm the judgments in the other three. In doing so, we make clear that Rule 1:1B(a)(3) gives trial courts concurrent jurisdiction with the appellate court to address the conditions for a stay pending appeal. We clarify that Code § 8.01-676.1(E) requires a party aggrieved by a trial court’s stay-pending-appeal ruling to seek review of that ruling before the appellate panel hearing the appeal, rather than by filing an independent appeal, as Paul tried to do here. And we clarify the rules for determining when a contempt order is appealable.

The whole opinion is worth reading, but it has a few points of particular interest for appellate lawyers.

First, the opinion explains concurrent jurisdiction under Rule 1:1B and stays pending appeal. Reviews of stay/security decision must be sought in the pending appeal, not a new one.

Second, the opinion address five appeals. The motions panel had earlier denied Tasos’s motion to dismiss one of them for lack of appellate jurisdiction. But the merits panel vacated that decision and dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction. So filing a motion to dismiss maybe got Tasos a second bite at the apple? File that away for later.

Third, the court denies counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel in four of the five appeals:

Three weeks before oral argument, two of Paul’s three lawyers moved to withdraw as counsel in four of the five cases on appeal, Record Nos. 1953-24-1, 1661-24-1, 0124-25-1, and 0370-25-1. No motion to withdraw was filed in Record No. 1045-24-1, in which Paul’s counsel less than two weeks earlier had completed supplemental briefing requested by the panel on whether we have jurisdiction over the appeal. The motion to withdraw in the four cases in which it was filed alleged that Paul “has failed to meet his contractual obligations to [his lawyers] and there has been a significant breakdown in communication over the past several months.” The motion to withdraw omitted reference to a third lawyer from the same firm who has also entered an appearance in each of the appeals. Given the considerable judicial resources already invested in evaluating these five appeals, the fact that the withdrawal motion was filed in only four of the five appeals, the imminence of oral argument, and the obvious prejudice to Paul if all of his lawyers withdrew without substitute counsel’s entering an appearance (assuming the motions are construed to mean that all of his lawyers seek withdrawal in each of the five appeals), we denied the motion to withdraw in the four appeals in which it was filed.

If you find yourself needing to withdraw close to argument, keep these factors—late timing, uneven coverage across the five appeals, substantial judicial resources already invested, and the risk of prejudice—in mind.