Lindberg v. DeHart

Loudoun County Circuit Court

Lindberg v. DeHart

27 Va. Cir. 392, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 221

CourtLoudoun County Circuit Court

DecidedApril 29, 1992

DocketCase No. (Chancery) 14297

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Va. Cir. 392 (Lindberg v. DeHart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Loudoun County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lindberg v. DeHart, 27 Va. Cir. 392, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 221 (Va. Super. Ct. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Thomas D. Horne

The Court will grant the request for a temporary injunction filed in this case. A review of the pleadings and affidavits filed clearly demonstrates that such relief is indicated. The evidence demonstrates that there will be no diminution of the value of the collateral in the event the instant sale is enjoined. Furthermore, the harm to Defendants, should the foreclosure be stayed, pales in comparison to the harm to be suffered by the Complainant. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the payments are in arrears. Furthermore, the pleadings and papers indicate substantial allegations meriting a full development of the record prior to a final disposition. As the Complainant has been unsuccessful in her attempts to refinance the property, a foreclosure at this time would preclude such a fair hearing on the merits. Upon the posting of a bond with surety in the amount of $1000.00 to cover any costs incident hereto, such injunction shall be effective.

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

By Judge Thomas D. Horne

The Court will grant the request for a temporary injunction filed in this case. A review of the pleadings and affidavits filed clearly demonstrates that such relief is indicated. The evidence demonstrates that there will be no diminution of the value of the collateral in the event the instant sale is enjoined. Furthermore, the harm to Defendants, should the foreclosure be stayed, pales in comparison to the harm to be suffered by the Complainant. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the payments are in arrears. Furthermore, the pleadings and papers indicate substantial allegations meriting a full development of the record prior to a final disposition. As the Complainant has been unsuccessful in her attempts to refinance the property, a foreclosure at this time would preclude such a fair hearing on the merits. Upon the posting of a bond with surety in the amount of $1000.00 to cover any costs incident hereto, such injunction shall be effective.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Va. Cir. 392, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindberg-v-dehart-vaccloudoun-1992.