This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Case 25-23251-MEH Doc 50 Filed 01/07/26 Entered 01/07/26 15:54:27 Desc Main
Document Page 11 of 12
In re Seaview Apartments LLC
Case No. 25-23251 (MEH)
Property. Mr. Weinstein testified that he offered to settle with FourLeaf and the Receiver for $7
million because that is what he believed the Property to be worth. (Weinstein Dep. Tr. 26:18-28:2,
Doc. No. 42-1). Virginia courts generally recognize that:
the opinion testimony of the owner of property, because of his relationship as
owner, is competent and admissible on the question of the value of such property,
regardless of his knowledge of property values. It is not necessary to show that he
was acquainted with the market value of such property or that he is an expert on
values.
Crowder v. Commonwealth, 41 Va. App. 658, 664 n.3, 588 S.E.2d 384, 387 n.3 (2003) (collecting
cases). Accordingly, this Court deems Mr. Weinstein, as the sole owner of the Debtor, “qualified
by reason of his relationship as owner to give estimates of the value of what he owns[,]” id.
(quoting King v. King, 40 Va. App. 200, 212-13, 578 S.E.2d 806, 813 (2003)), especially when the
Debtor now suggests that the true value of the Property is substantially higher than the $9.05
million sale priced obtained by the Receiver.
Beyond the Debtor’s inactions in the Circuit Court, this Court finds the Debtor’s efforts to
advance its bankruptcy case to be conspicuously lacking. For one, the Debtor has not filed a
declaration from Mr. Weinstein in support of any relief, including the petition. The Debtor’s
principal, Mr. Weinstein, did not appear or participate in the hearing on FourLeaf’s motions. The
only participants in the hearing on the Debtor’s behalf were professionals whom the Debtor has
not even sought to retain in this case yet. The Debtor also has not filed any valuations for the
Property or any evidence demonstrating that the proposed sale price for the Property is not
adequate.
All of the foregoing indicates to this Court that the Debtor has no real intention to advance
the case, but rather is operating on the defensive, seeking to avoid the closing on the Property and
thereby potentially protect Mr. Weinstein from any personal liability that follows from the
Page 11 of 12Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12)