First Capital Realty, Inc. v. Prince Fairfax-Virginia Finuncane Associates Joint Venture

Alexandria County Circuit Court

First Capital Realty, Inc. v. Prince Fairfax-Virginia Finuncane Associates Joint Venture

14 Va. Cir. 107, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 243

CourtAlexandria County Circuit Court

DecidedSeptember 9, 1988

DocketCase No. (Law) 10688

StatusPublished

This text of 14 Va. Cir. 107 (First Capital Realty, Inc. v. Prince Fairfax-Virginia Finuncane Associates Joint Venture) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alexandria County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Capital Realty, Inc. v. Prince Fairfax-Virginia Finuncane Associates Joint Venture, 14 Va. Cir. 107, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 243 (Va. Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE DONALD H. KENT

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude several categories of evidence at trial.

The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, finds that evidence of the option to syndicate, the "market value" of the Prince Fairfax Plaza Apartments, the oral brokerage agreement, and the transmittal letter is relevant and admissible. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to exclude evidence of the above items.

The Court also finds that expert testimony regarding the standards and practices of the real estate industry is admissible. However, expert testimony on whether or not the changes to the terms of the Dwoskin offer were material, and whether or not a broker was the procuring cause of the sale of property is inadmissible, as these are matters within the competence of the jury.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE DONALD H. KENT

This matter is before the Court upon the Defendants’ Motion in Limine to exclude several categories of evidence at trial.

The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, finds that evidence of the option to syndicate, the "market value" of the Prince Fairfax Plaza Apartments, the oral brokerage agreement, and the transmittal letter is relevant and admissible. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion to exclude evidence of the above items.

The Court also finds that expert testimony regarding the standards and practices of the real estate industry is admissible. However, expert testimony on whether or not the changes to the terms of the Dwoskin offer were material, and whether or not a broker was the procuring cause of the sale of property is inadmissible, as these are matters within the competence of the jury.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 Va. Cir. 107, 1988 Va. Cir. LEXIS 243, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-capital-realty-inc-v-prince-fairfax-virginia-finuncane-associates-vaccalexandria-1988.