Ratcliff v. Allen

Alexandria County Circuit Court

Ratcliff v. Allen

8 Va. Cir. 292, 1986 Va. Cir. LEXIS 56

CourtAlexandria County Circuit Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1986

DocketCase No. (Chancery) 17361

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Va. Cir. 292 (Ratcliff v. Allen) 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

Ratcliff v. Allen, 8 Va. Cir. 292, 1986 Va. Cir. LEXIS 56 (Va. Super. Ct. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Special Plea of Laches. The Court, having heard the evidence and considered the arguments of counsel, must deny Defendant's plea. While it Is true that the Plaintiff kniew as early as July 1982 about the issue of the possible ademption of the real estate and suit was not filed until May 22, 198S, the mere passage of this amount of time is not sufficient to bar Plaintiff’s claim. The defense of laches requires, in addition to an unreasonable delay, a resulting prejudice to the Defendant. This prejudice is usually described in terms of an exposure to the danger of an injustice from a loss of material evidence and information or substantial changes in conditions which cannot be restored.

The Court cannot find the resulting prejudice required by the laches doctrine. Defendant's financial condition has not been altered to such an extent that it cannot be restored, nor have I heard evidence sufficient to find the loss of material evidence or information due to the passage of time.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Special Plea of Laches will be denied.

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

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Special Plea of Laches. The Court, having heard the evidence and considered the arguments of counsel, must deny Defendant's plea. While it Is true that the Plaintiff kniew as early as July 1982 about the issue of the possible ademption of the real estate and suit was not filed until May 22, 198S, the mere passage of this amount of time is not sufficient to bar Plaintiff’s claim. The defense of laches requires, in addition to an unreasonable delay, a resulting prejudice to the Defendant. This prejudice is usually described in terms of an exposure to the danger of an injustice from a loss of material evidence and information or substantial changes in conditions which cannot be restored.

The Court cannot find the resulting prejudice required by the laches doctrine. Defendant's financial condition has not been altered to such an extent that it cannot be restored, nor have I heard evidence sufficient to find the loss of material evidence or information due to the passage of time.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Special Plea of Laches will be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Va. Cir. 292, 1986 Va. Cir. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratcliff-v-allen-vaccalexandria-1986.