You are here

Opinions

 

The summaries on this website are summaries of the opinions issued by the judges of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia from October 2004 to date. The opinions may be searched by year, judge, category and chapter. For a more detailed search, enter a keyword in the search box above. This opinion bank, however, is not an exhaustive list of opinions issued by the judges of the Western District. These summaries are not intended to replace other research methods, but may be used as a starting point for your research. These summaries do not contain information as to whether an opinion has been published, appealed or the disposition of any such appeal, or otherwise overruled or affected by subsequent case law or statute. These summaries have been prepared for the convenience of the researcher and in no way constitute an interpretation by the Court of the opinion summarized. Please rely on the opinion not the summary. Please contact Judge Connelly's chambers or Judge Black's chambers regarding any questions or errors.

In re Robinette (Case No 11-70557) 04/01/2013

The chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of modified plans in two separate cases.  The court thus considered how payments received, pursuant to an existing wage deduction order, in the interval between the time a modified plan is prepared and the date it is actually filed, should be applied – to an existing delinquency under the confirmed plan or the obligations to accrue under the terms of the modified plan.  The court concluded that, although it may be observed that the practical effect of confirmation would be to forgive by implication payments which accrued under the confirmed plans, such a result can be expressly included in a modified plan and where otherwise appropriate confirmed.  The court overruled the trustee’s objections and confirmed the plans.

In re Stamback (Case No. 11-71617) 04/01/2013

The chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of modified plans in two separate cases.  The court thus considered how payments received, pursuant to an existing wage deduction order, in the interval between the time a modified plan is prepared and the date it is actually filed, should be applied – to an existing delinquency under the confirmed plan or the obligations to accrue under the terms of the modified plan.  The court concluded that, although it may be observed that the practical effect of confirmation would be to forgive by implication payments which accrued under the confirmed plans, such a result can be expressly included in a modified plan and where otherwise appropriate confirmed.  The court overruled the trustee’s objections and confirmed the plans.

In re S&R Construction Co., Inc. (Case No. 09-70710) 03/13/2013

The court was asked to clarify or amend its previous order concerning a derivative proceeding.  The court noted that a Virginia corporation owns the rights to assert causes of action, a trustee succeeds to those rights when a corporation files bankruptcy, the rights become assets of the estate, and the trustee can then sell (or abandon pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554) those assets when administering the estate.  The court concluded that it had the authority to order abandonment and that the order that was entered specifically abandoned the right to prosecute the derivative suit to one of the shareholders, reserving only a portion of the potential proceeds for the estate.

In re Carr (Case No. 12-71316) 03/07/2013

The United States Trustee filed a motion for review of debtor’s attorney’s fees, on the grounds that the attorney prepared and filed, on behalf of the debtor, certain deficient and inaccurate schedules and statements.  During discovery, the United States Trustee filed a motion to compel the production of the engagement agreement between the debtor and the attorney, to which the attorney objected.  The court concluded that that the engagement agreement between the attorney and his client was relevant to the issue of whether “inaccurate schedules and statements” had been filed in this case.  The court thus granted the motion to compel.

In re Randolph (Case No. 12-71417) 03/07/2013

The United States Trustee filed a motion for review of debtor’s attorney’s fees, on the grounds that he prepared and filed, on behalf of the debtor, certain deficient and inaccurate schedules and statements, failed to appear at the debtor’s initial meeting of creditors, and filed an inaccurate Rule 2016 disclosure.  During discovery, the United States Trustee filed a motion to compel the production of the engagement agreement between the debtor and the attorney, to which the attorney objected.  The court noted that the agreement setting forth the terms of counsel’s compensation for services to be rendered in this case was clearly relevant to the allegations.  The court granted the motion to compel.

In re Ludwig (Case No. 12-51167) 2/25/2013

Court sustained the debtor's objection to priority status of claim held by the debtor's former spouse.  Debtor asserted that the claim was not entitled to priority status because the debt stemmed from a property settlement agreement pursuant to their divorce.  Based on evidence presented, the Court could not find that agreement to pay joint debts was in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support under section 507(a)(1)(A) and thus was not a domestic support obligation as defined in section 101(14A).

In re Pilkenton (Case No. 12-71870) 02/12/2013

The debtor filed a motion for redemption of a vehicle.  The court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the proper redemption value.  The court found that the debtor did not meet his burden of proof on the valuation, and then it determined that the value of the vehicle was not less than the amount of the debt owed to the secured creditor and thus put a redemption value of that amount on the vehicle.

In re Mull (Case No. 12-71486) 02/05/2013

The court entered an order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 plan and gave the debtors fourteen days to file an amended plan.  The debtors did not file an amended plan nor did they move for an extension.  The court thus dismissed the case.  The debtors filed a motion reopen their chapter 13 case.  The case had not been closed, and the court found that the motion to reopen was thus untimely and procedurally improper.  The court also found that, even if it considered the motion a motion to vacate the dismissal order, there was no justification for vacating.

Pages

View all »