3:2011-cv-00053

RAGEPATH Overview of Quality Property Asset Management Company v Trump Virginia Acquisitions LLC

This lawsuit stemmed from Trump's acquisition of a Virginia estate belonging to bankrupt Patricia Kluge. Kluge's ex-husband had divided the estate into a variety of different parcels, some of which had come into the hands of outside investors by the time Kluge entered bankruptcy. The lawsuit sought to clarify certain contractual rights attached to the various parcels. This is a complex lawsuit that we have not completely reviewed.

Case Summary

United States Western District of Virginia

3:2011-cv-00053

Quality Properties Asset Management Company v Trump Virginia Acquisitions LLC

Date Filed: 8/26/11

Date Terminated: 8/16/12

Cause: Diversity – Declaratory Judgment

Plaintiffs: Quality Properties Asset Management Company

Defendants: Trump Virginia Acquisitions, LLC; Trump Vineyards Estates, LLC

Counter Claimants: Trump Vineyards Estates, LLC; Trump Virginia Acquisitions LLC

Counter Defendants: Quality Properties Asset Management Company; Bank of America, N.A.; Beale, Davidson, Etherington & Morris, P.C., Substitute Trustee

“ Plaintiff, Quality Properties Asset Management Company ("Quality Properties," or "QP"), filed this action seeking "a declaratory judgment that the defendants do not have a right of first refusal to purchase certain property" because "the right of first refusal no longer exists."1 "[I]f the right [of first refusal] continues to exist," Plaintiff requests an alternative "declaratory judgment identifying the person or persons entitled to exercise the right and the terms upon which the right may be exercised.2 Defendants have moved to dismiss, asserting that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction — specifically, that the Plaintiff cannot meet its burden to show that the value of the right of first refusal ("ROFR," or "the right") exceeds $75,000 because the value of the right is speculative. However, Plaintiff alleges that the property is worth $15.26 million, and adds that the claimed ROFR clouds the entirety of the property, rendering the entire property unmarketable. Under the facts alleged in this case, the amount in controversy is the value of the whole of the real estate to which the claim extends, and I will deny the motion to dismiss. (Appellate decision, November 10, 2011) ”