Meadow Springs LLC v. IH Riverdale LLC

It could not be said as a matter of law that the defendants would not be entitled to any equitable relief with respect to the property in question, so the property was involved in their suit complaining of a breach of their rights under an operating agreement they entered into for its development.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Meadow Springs, LLC MS brought this suit charging IH Riverdale, LLC IH and Geoffrey Nolan with various torts based on their filing and delivery to a third party of a notice of lis pendens in the suit giving rise to IH Riverdale, LLC v. McChesney Capital Partners, LLC. 1 Finding no impropriety in the notice of lis pendens, the trial court granted IH and Nolan’s motion for summary judgment and denied MS’s motion for partial summary. MS appeals. We affirm. IH and McChesney Capital Partners, LLC MCP formed Riverdale Capital Investments, LLC RCI to develop an apartment complex known as Meadow View Apartments on a tract of land in Clayton County referred to as the Phase I property. IH, Nolan who is IH’s owner, MCP, and George McChesney who is MCP’s owner contemplated that RCI or an associated entity would later develop another apartment complex on adjacent land known as the Phase II property.

In January 2001, MCP, acting in furtherance of the parties’ venture, entered into an agreement to purchase the Phase I property. In the purchase agreement, the seller agreed that at closing it would grant MCP an option to purchase the Phase II property. In April 2001, MCP assigned one-half of its right, title and interest in the January 2001 purchase agreement and in its Phase II option agreement to IH. The assignment agreement stated that IH and MCP, as owners of RCI, would define the terms of the option agreement in an operating agreement to be executed later.

Meadow Springs LLC v. IH Riverdale LLC

It could not be said as a matter of law that the defendants would not be entitled to any equitable relief with respect to the property in question, so the property was involved in their suit complaining of a breach of their rights under an operating agreement they entered into for its development.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report