A dispute over a mistaken payment during an office build-out has led to legal action, as a project management company seeks the return of nearly $500,000 it claims was wrongfully retained by another business. The complaint was filed by Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 10, 2026, naming Cypress International, Inc. as the defendant.
According to court documents, Jones Lang LaSalle Americas (JLL) alleges that Cypress International received and kept funds that were transmitted in error as part of a tenant improvement project at 66 Canal Center Plaza in Alexandria, Virginia. JLL states that despite repeated notices and demands for reimbursement, Cypress has refused to return $494,295.53 which JLL claims it mistakenly paid while managing the project.
The background detailed in the filing describes how Cypress entered into a lease agreement with Liberty 66 Canal, LLC in December 2022 and subsequently engaged JLL in February 2023 to provide project management services for its new office space. As outlined in the complaint, JLL’s responsibilities did not include funding tenant improvements or making payments directly to Cypress; instead, those funds were managed through an escrow account administered by Nussbaum Lowinger LLP (the Escrow Agent), with disbursements known as “draws” intended solely for vendor payments.
The issue arose after JLL submitted a draw request on behalf of Cypress in May 2024. On July 10, 2024, the Escrow Agent mistakenly sent $498,189.97—the full amount of Draw #8—to JLL rather than directly to Cypress. To correct this error and prevent delays in vendor payments for the ongoing project, JLL then transferred $494,295.53 (the draw amount minus fees owed to JLL) to Cypress on July 17, 2024.
However, shortly after this transaction, the Escrow Agent recalled its original payment from JLL back into the escrow account on July 12 and then issued another transfer—this time directly to Cypress—on July 19 for $494,260.53. As a result of these overlapping transactions, Cypress received two separate wire transfers totaling $988,556.06 related to Draw #8 but was only entitled to one such payment according to JLL’s complaint.
JLL asserts that it notified Cypress about the duplicate payment as early as June 2025 and provided documentation showing both transfers: “JLL notified Cypress in June 2025 that Cypress had received a duplicate payment for Draw #8 and requested reimbursement of the mistakenly transmitted funds.” The Escrow Agent also confirmed that double payment had occurred for this draw request.
Despite these communications—including emails sent on June 10 and November 18 of 2025 and a formal demand letter from outside counsel dated January 16, 2026—JLL alleges that “Cypress continues to retain the $494,295.53 that was mistakenly paid by JLL.” The complaint further claims that excess funds remaining in escrow were credited toward lease abatement by Cypress without any agreement or authorization from JLL: “Cypress applied these excess funds to lease abatement unilaterally and without any agreement…from JLL.”
In its legal arguments under counts of unjust enrichment and conversion, JLL maintains there is no contract covering this situation between itself and Cypress but insists it is entitled to restitution because “it is against equity and good conscience” for Cypress to keep money it was not owed: “Defendant Cypress has accepted and retained the benefit inequitably and at Plaintiff JLL’s expense.” On conversion grounds, JLL contends it remained owner of those funds at all relevant times: “JLL did not owe Cypress the $494,295.53 and did not authorize Cypress to retain…those funds.”
The plaintiff requests judgment against Cypress International for $494,295.53 plus legal fees, collection costs, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as well as any other relief deemed proper by the court.
The case is being handled by attorney Frederick S. Rudesheim of Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., representing Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc., under case number 1:26-cv-00986.
