Wike v. Variety Mobile Home Services, Inc.

29 Va. Cir. 225, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 110
CourtWashington County Circuit Court
DecidedOctober 22, 1992
DocketCase No. (Chancery) 92-167
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 Va. Cir. 225 (Wike v. Variety Mobile Home Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wike v. Variety Mobile Home Services, Inc., 29 Va. Cir. 225, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 110 (Va. Super. Ct. 1992).

Opinion

By Judge Charles H. Smith, Jr.

This matter is pending before the court upon the defendant’s “Motion to Quash Lis Pendens.” The court heard arguments concerning same on September 8, 1992, and gave counsel leave to file authorities or arguments. The court has received same dated September 9, 1992, and September 25, 1992, respectively. At first appearance, it would seem that the bankruptcy case cited by the plaintiff, Robert B. Hart, et al. v. United Virginia Bank, Bkrtcy., 24 B.R. 821 (E.D. Va. 1982), would be good authority for the filing of a lis pendens in this context. In that case, the bankruptcy judge apparently ruled that the filing of a lis pendens was proper in almost any civil suit since “any suit in which the defendant is an individual has the potential to affect the title to real estate.” However, that case was decided before the effective date of subsection B of § 8.01-268 of the Code. That subsection provides as follows:

B. No memorandum of lis pendens shall be filed unless the action on which the lis pendens is based seeks to establish an interest by the filing party in the real property described in the memorandum.

I agree with the defendant that that subsection controls here. That subsection evinces a legislative intent to limit the application of a memorandum of lis pendens. The action filed by the plaintiff herein does not seek to establish an interest in the realty or personalty described in the memorandum. I will grant the motion to quash but will deny the motion for sanctions.

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

Related

Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v. Leader Funding, Inc.
70 Va. Cir. 31 (Brunswick County Circuit Court, 2005)
Meliani v. Jade Dunn Loring Metro, LLC
286 F. Supp. 2d 741 (E.D. Virginia, 2003)
Hellberg v. Valley Hardware Co.
46 Va. Cir. 112 (Rockingham County Circuit Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Va. Cir. 225, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wike-v-variety-mobile-home-services-inc-vaccwashington-1992.