Hatton v. Markham

Chesterfield County Circuit Court

Hatton v. Markham

27 Va. Cir. 205, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 176

CourtChesterfield County Circuit Court

DecidedMarch 13, 1992

DocketCase No. CH90-1443

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Va. Cir. 205 (Hatton v. Markham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Chesterfield County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hatton v. Markham, 27 Va. Cir. 205, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 176 (Va. Super. Ct. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Herbert C. Gill, Jr.

The Court has reviewed the memoranda submitted, as well as the facts of this case. The facts appear to be undisputed. Most of the law of the cases appears to be undisputed. The sole legal issue in controversy appears to be whether the legal rate of interest runs against all of the principal balance owed or only one-half in order to coincide with the limited interest of the plaintiff.

Section 8.01-358 of the 1950 Code of Virginia (as amended) seems to be dispositive of this question. The lien attaches as to the equity on the date of bankruptcy, plus accrued interest at the legal rate until paid. The lien is against the whole and not against a one-half undivided interest. The statute provides that it shall be a lien “on all the real estate.” Mr. Hatton has a one-half undivided interest in the real property. Therefore, the Court may not proceed to declare the debt “satisfied” under § 8.01-455 of the 1950 Code of Virginia (as amended) until there is proof that the entire judgment has been paid off or discharged. For the Court to order the same would require the Court to modify the terms of the debt (lien). The Court is without authority to modify the lien. Gurnee v. Johnson, 77 Va. 712 (1883).

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

By Judge Herbert C. Gill, Jr.

The Court has reviewed the memoranda submitted, as well as the facts of this case. The facts appear to be undisputed. Most of the law of the cases appears to be undisputed. The sole legal issue in controversy appears to be whether the legal rate of interest runs against all of the principal balance owed or only one-half in order to coincide with the limited interest of the plaintiff.

Section 8.01-358 of the 1950 Code of Virginia (as amended) seems to be dispositive of this question. The lien attaches as to the equity on the date of bankruptcy, plus accrued interest at the legal rate until paid. The lien is against the whole and not against a one-half undivided interest. The statute provides that it shall be a lien “on all the real estate.” Mr. Hatton has a one-half undivided interest in the real property. Therefore, the Court may not proceed to declare the debt “satisfied” under § 8.01-455 of the 1950 Code of Virginia (as amended) until there is proof that the entire judgment has been paid off or discharged. For the Court to order the same would require the Court to modify the terms of the debt (lien). The Court is without authority to modify the lien. Gurnee v. Johnson, 77 Va. 712 (1883).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Va. Cir. 205, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatton-v-markham-vaccchesterfiel-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack