$1,615,000 from the debtor. In either event, it is obvious that the debtor has a legal right to whatever ownership interest WPN obtained in the Poydras building, because all of WPN’s capital contribution was derived from the borrowing against the equity in the debtor and both theories deprive the debtor of that interest and the priority return that accompanied it. The Court finds that the debtor has a legal claim to the ownership interest in the Poydras building. Consequently, the Court finds that the debtor met its burden of proof and the transfer is void as fraudulent pursuant to Virginia Code § 55-80. Generally, when dealing with real property, voiding the transfer and restoring title to the previous owner is appropriate. See Price v. Hawkins, 247 Va. 32, 37, 439 S.E.2d 382 (1994) (<HOLDING>). This case, however, presents a unique set of
recognizing contribution in the appropriate case holding that because the case did not involve realty where title could be restored monetary damages were appropriate holding that any part of a foreign decree which attempted to determine ultimate title to north carolina realty is void holding that because a county is not a person for purposes of a section 1983 claim it cannot be sued where the remedy sought is monetary damages holding that because plaintiff did not apply for a job he could not be rejected in a title vii case