BRISTOL, Va. (WJHL) – The sole abortion clinic in the Tri-Cities is now in a legal battle with its landlord.
Kilo Delta, LLC, the owner of the property on the 2600 block of Osborne Street in Bristol, is suing the current tenant, Bristol Women’s Health, claiming fraud, concealment and misrepresentation by the abortion provider.
Court documents obtained by News Channel 11 claim Kilo Delta had no knowledge Bristol Women’s Health would be performing abortions on their property.
But Bristol Women’s Health alleged in a legal response that Kilo Delta continued accepting rent payments and made repairs to the property after having knowledge of the services offered.
The original complaint was filed on Dec. 7, 2022, in Bristol, Virginia Circuit Court by attorney Jeffrey Campbell, who is also a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates.
Kilo Delta, owned by Chadwick Claude King and Chase King, is seeking an order of rescission for Bristol Women’s Health’s lease, as well as restitution. If granted, the order of rescission would rescind the leasing agreement.
Bristol Women’s Health was originally located in Bristol, Tennessee under the name Bristol Regional Women’s Center.
The clinic moved to Virginia after Tennessee’s abortion ban went into effect last Summer.
The clinic’s website says it offers surgical abortions up to 16 weeks into a pregnancy and an abortion pill up to 11 weeks post-pregnancy.
The lawsuit claims Kilo Delta entered a lease agreement with the clinic on June 7, 2022, after being alerted of a potential tenant in Bristol Women’s Health on May 13.
A letter of intent drafted by Cathy Mullins, a commercial realtor the lawsuit claims represented the clinic, identified the intended use of the property under Bristol Women’s Health as a “medical clinic.”
The lawsuit alleged the realtor “represented that the type of medical practice of her clients was a general family practice.”
On June 9, two days after the lease was signed, the lawsuit said an employee of the Kings informed them the clinic was performing abortions at their Tennessee clinic and believed the same would be done at their new location in Virginia.
Following that, the lawsuit claims Mullins was contacted to propose termination of the lease as the Kings were “morally opposed to the use of their property as an abortion clinic.”
It claims the Kings felt misled and would not have leased the property with the knowledge it would be used as an abortion clinic.
The lawsuit alleges, “At no time during the course of the several days long communication and or negotiations, leading up to the execution of the lease agreement, did the Defendants disclose that they intended to operate an abortion clinic at the Osborne Street property.”
The plaintiff claims Mullins tried to negotiate and amend the lease to only allow the abortion pill to be administered at the clinic, but the Kings wanted to move forward with a mutual termination of the lease.
On July 21, the Kings requested an in-person meeting with Bristol Women’s Health leadership, offering a refund on any money spent by the clinic. No agreement was made, leading to the lawsuit.
An attorney representing Bristol Women’s Health filed a legal response on Jan. 6 claiming Kilo Delta has continued to accept rent payments in the months since the request for a mutual termination of the lease. The response claims Kilo Delta accepted $10,000 in rent and approved repairs to the property after having knowledge of the abortion services offered.
The defendant also cited precedent from the Supreme Court of Virginia that “a plaintiff seeking to disaffirm or rescind a contract on the ground of fraud must do so promptly.”
It claims Kilo Delta’s six-month delay in seeking legal action to rescind the lease, acceptance of rent and completion of repairs after having knowledge of abortions being offered “constituted waiver and ratification of the Commercial Lease Agreement, barring any rescission of the contract.”
The legal response adding Kilo Delta “has affirmed the contract and cannot be permitted to change its mind at this late date.”
The plaintiff claimed the delay in legal action was “prejudicial” to the clinic as Bristol Women’s Health had invested money into the property and in marketing and staffing at the location.
An attorney representing the clinic told News Channel 11 that a date for a hearing has not been set.