Colonial Williamsburg to foreclose on Carter's Grove
![]() |
In a message sent out about 4:30 p.m., President Colin Campbell said Carter's Grove LLC "has failed to make on time the final two payments due on its mortgage obligation" and is "in default under the terms of the mortgage financing."
The announcement also noted that Colonial Williamsburg has "initiated foreclosure proceedings under the deed of trust lien that was placed on the Carter's Grove Plantation property to secure the financing".
The property was sold to Carter's Grove LLC for $15.3 million in 2007. Of the sale price, $5 million in cash was paid at closing and $10.3 million was financed through a mortgage.
The process, Campbell added, "is intended to end with a public auction of the property." That auction is scheduled for Feb. 15 at the Williamsburg-James City County Courthouse.
Preservation and conservation easements Colonial Williamsburg placed on the property when it was sold are binding on current and future owners, the announcement stated. The easements protect the historic mansion, its viewshed, and the archaeological sites on the property, which include the 17th century Martin's Hundred. The easements also ban residential and commercial development.
"While we regret how these events have unfolded," Campbell added, "I am confident that these actions support the best long-term interests of the Carter's Grove site and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation."
More in Saturday's Gazette.
| State Chamber of Commerce stands behind transportation funding | James City offers 2 free finance courses |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
Claud Stuart wrote on Jan 27, 2011 6:50 PM:
Joe wrote on Jan 27, 2011 8:02 PM:
Annie Nonimous wrote on Jan 27, 2011 8:17 PM:
Bob wrote on Jan 27, 2011 8:27 PM:
Buck wrote on Jan 27, 2011 8:30 PM:
Joe- I'm curious what revenue the city would get by leveling CW? Are you under the mistaken impression that the City funds it? "
Buck wrote on Jan 27, 2011 8:35 PM:
hmmm... wrote on Jan 27, 2011 8:58 PM:
Lee wrote on Jan 27, 2011 9:16 PM:
wake up cw wrote on Jan 27, 2011 9:24 PM:
sharon jackson wrote on Jan 27, 2011 9:44 PM:
Lisa wrote on Jan 27, 2011 10:58 PM:
Fond Memories wrote on Jan 27, 2011 11:05 PM:
I agree with 'hmmm,' although I suspect these final 2 payments must be large balloon like payments. .... Kluge's widow just lost everything to foreclosure in spite of her reputed $1 billion divorce settlement. "
Claud Stuart wrote on Jan 27, 2011 11:05 PM:
State of the Union wrote on Jan 28, 2011 1:09 AM:
ED wrote on Jan 28, 2011 3:15 AM:
Taxes Paid wrote on Jan 28, 2011 6:56 AM:
There is obviously much more to the story so how about burning a little gas and shoe leather VG reporteers and get us the real scoop. Was Minor even called for comment. Given his proclivity for talking to the press in Charlotesville about his failled Hotel deal, I'm sure he'd be only too happy to speak with the VG.
I'm sure he would describe the situation as a temporary setback to his vision for bringing horse racing back to Virginia. That he intends to buy the property at foreclosure and was only using CW for interim financing until a new loan could be worked out. He will probably go on to blame CW for his default and sue them for some concocted breach of contract. If he wins, he might even become the new owner of CWF. "
Wish I could buy it wrote on Jan 28, 2011 7:27 AM:
Bill Tyler wrote on Jan 28, 2011 8:42 AM:
History Making Article wrote on Jan 28, 2011 9:40 AM:
Compared to the stories being consistently run about Courthouse Commons in an effort to generate controversy, this story has legs and is worthy of additional investigation. Readers are eager to learn about this and those involved.
How bout it Mr. O'Donovan? Halsey Minor might even take you for a ride on his plane. Oh- I forgot -it was repossed too. Ooops. "
Peg wrote on Jan 28, 2011 9:59 AM:
To Peg wrote on Jan 28, 2011 10:38 AM:
Peg wrote on Jan 28, 2011 11:05 AM:
Bob R. wrote on Jan 28, 2011 11:13 AM:
This would likely delay the foreclosure process almost indefinitely at this time. "
Quit wrote on Jan 28, 2011 11:28 AM:
Bob R. wrote on Jan 28, 2011 11:41 AM:
Is Jones really the best person to chair JCC BOS, or was it her turn, or did she need the extra money most? All good questions to ask before making our choice in November.
Trying to be civil, but that does not mean I have to be silent. "
Quit wrote on Jan 28, 2011 12:08 PM:
You've done well the last few weeks, keep it up. Be civil, be considerate. There may be a perfectly good explanation for her situation, it is personal in nature and the law will prevail if needed. "
Cordell wrote on Jan 28, 2011 6:07 PM:
Sadly censored again wrote on Jan 28, 2011 7:27 PM:
Would someone please explain why the ONLY person who is obsessing, oops sorry, “very concerned about what is going on with Mary Jones' Residency” is the same person that is the resident expert on ALL things Mary Jones!?!
If laws are being broken and Chairman Jones is not a “legitimate Supervisor” why do some look to a newspaper (or blog) for answers?
If there was a real concern that these delusional accusations had any merit, why has no legal authority been contacted?
If Bob had legitimate concerns, where was he for the last 2 BOS meetings!?! Actually Bob, it is your “silence that is deafening!”
Supervisor Jones IS the Chairman of the Board, “SO GET OVER IT”… you can’t even vote for her (if you actually bother to this time) "
Amazing wrote on Jan 28, 2011 9:15 PM:
Poor C W wrote on Jan 30, 2011 6:43 PM:
Amazing wrote on Jan 30, 2011 6:47 PM:
whyd ya LIE bob wrote on Jan 31, 2011 5:46 PM:
" To BobR - nobody cares what you think.
You are an embarrassment to yourself, your family and this community. You may think people like and agree with you but they don't. Even J4C has renounced you and your tactics. Your crusuade against Republicans is a joke.
Take your lies and evil ways to Charles City. "
You know occasionally Bob comes up with a classic lines here and there like:
Bob R. wrote on Oct 21, 2010 8:34 AM …“Making up your own facts are you? Or is comprehension low.”
Bob R. wrote on Oct 22, 2010 7:11 PM: “…I was not out to embarrass Ms. Jones, I was out to get her…”
Bob R. wrote on Oct 23, 2010 9:23 AM: "Your comprehension is truly zero isn't it…I stick to the verifiable facts and never stated that Ms. Jones husbands property had been sold. I merely and 100% accurately stated that it "was to be sold" that very day on the courthouse steps. I realize you heard something entirely different, because that is what you wanted to hear”
Bob R. wrote on Oct 23, 2010 12:43 PM: “So [you] would rather continue to spread falsehoods and slander than face the facts…”
These are sniglettes from a comment posted on a letter to the Editor, that was ACTUALLY titled "You're Not Alone" written by Chairman Jones
Well worth the read and hopefully your application of her intended message!
http://www.vagazette.com/articles/2010/10/23/news/doc4cc2497955183875458988.txt
So much for the secrecy LIE!
Bob R. wrote on Oct 21, 2010 11:26 PM: "…your comments are slanderous and should be removed.” - No Bob that would be you!!! "
Bob R. wrote on Jan 31, 2011 6:16 PM:
Again, Ms. Jones' letter clearly points out how she allowed herself to be left in the dark and that the family fell into foreclosure. All the while though, they are able to maintain their savings. Seems like someone taking advantage of the situation to me. Especially once you consider the lawsuit against the bank which only serves to stall the eviction from this house.
Of course a comment or two from Ms. Jones could have cleared this up in no time months ago. But instead she attempts to play on people's sympathy. The people who might sympathize with her are few, for how many people defaulting on their mortgage have full health benefits. "
SayWhat wrote on Feb 1, 2011 7:38 AM:
To VG Editor wrote on Feb 1, 2011 3:40 PM:
This is your web-site, therefore your rules, under your control and “personal attacks are prohibited”
I respectfully ask why repetitive and vicious lies about others go without recourse, while verifiable factual responses to these claims are censored.
Again, I do not want to in any way violate your terms of use and am respectfully asking for clarity herein. Thank you in advance for your response "



Well Now wrote on Jan 27, 2011 6:35 PM: