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.

Hooker v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Hooker) (Case No. 05-51169; A.P. No. 05-05047) 8/21/2008

The debtor requested a discharge of his student loan debt for undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), and in a previous decision, the Court denied the discharge.  The decision was appealed to the District Court for the Western District of Virginia and remanded back to the bankruptcy court.  On remand, this Court, applying Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987), again denied discharge of the debtor's student loan.  The Court found that although the debtor was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and tested HIV positive, the debtor did not put forth any evidence supporting a nexus between the debtor's health conditions and his failure to make student loan payments.  Further, the debtor has failed to show that he has made a good faith attempt to repay his student loans because, despite having an income cushion which would cover his payments under an income contingent repayment plan, the debtor has refused to consider and apply for student loan payments under the income contingent plan.

Williams v. White (In re White) (Case No. 07-71909, A.P. No. 08-07011) 8/21/2008

Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, in part, under Rule 12(b)(6)  for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of certain debts under section 523(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6) arising out of renovation and construction services. Court held that a simple breach of contract claim was not excepted from discharge pursuant to any of the referenced sections and dismissed the breach of contract count of the plaintiff's complaint. Court denied defendants' motion regarding the fraud count as it appeared that the plaintiffs could establish the necessary elements for a finding of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A).  Court also denied the motion as to alleged violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act as the plaintiffs' complaint alleged sufficient facts to support actual fraud, false misrepresentation and willful and malicious injury.

Perdue v. White (In re White) (Case No. 07-71909; A.P. No. 08-07012) 8/21/2008

Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, in part, under Rule 12(b)(6)  for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of certain debts under section 523(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6) arising out of renovation and construction services. Court held that a simple breach of contract claim was not excepted from discharge pursuant to any of the referenced sections and dismissed the breach of contract count of the plaintiff's complaint. Court denied defendants' motion regarding the fraud in the inducement count as it appeared that the plaintiffs could establish the necessary elements for a finding of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A).

In re Minahan (Case No. 08-70118) 08/20/2008

The Court sustained Chapter 13 Trustee's objection to debtors' plan and denied confirmation of such plan because (1) the above-median income debtors' plan does not pay enough money for the benefit of unsecured creditors to satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b) and 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2), and (2) Official Bankruptcy Form 22C ("B22C") incorrectly overstates the amount of the Chapter 13 Trustee's commission.  Further, the Court held that adequate protection payments under 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1)(C) due to the secured creditors during both the pre-confirmation and post-confirmation stages of a case take precedence over the payment by the Chapter 13 Trustee of any compensation payable under the terms of the plan to debtors' counsel and over any other claim against the Chapter 13 plan payments.  The Court also held that the effective date of the plan for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1) is the date of the final hearing on plan confirmation, and that the amount determined from B22C is the starting point, not both the starting and ending point, in determining the correct minimum obligation of a Chapter 13 debtor under a confirmable plan.

In re Cooley (Case No. 08-60222) 08/15/2008

The Court held that, as in In re Wood, 173 F.3d 770 (10th Cir. 1999), abandonment under 11 U.S.C. § 554(c) is not automatically reversed upon the reopening of a case, and that it may, under Rule 60(b), grant relief from an order closing a bankruptcy case and from its effect.  Specifically, the Court held that the inadvertent filing of a no-asset report by the Chapter 7 trustee is sufficient for purposes of vacating the closing of a bankruptcy case to the extent that it caused the statutory abandonment of an asset which served as collateral for a debt.

In re Medley (Case No. 08-70572) 08/11/2008

The Court approved a Reaffirmation Agreement concerning an automobile purchase contract under 11 U.S.C. §524(c)(6)(A) despite the presumption in 11 U.S.C. § 524(b)(1) because debtor (1) has access to other financial resources in addition to her income, (2) is able to work more hours and increase her income, (3) has significant equity in her car which she created by her apparently voluntary payment prior to bankruptcy, and (4) is determined to keep the car and do what is necessary to do so and simultaneously provide for her family.

Huffman v. White (In re White) (Case No. 07-71909; A.P. No. 08-07003) 8/1/2008

Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss complaint for failure to state a cause of action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Relying on Marunaka Dainichi Co. v.  Yamada (In re Yamada), 197 B.R. 37 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1996), Court found that the plaintiff alleged that defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff when he entered into the contract and the remaining elements necessary for finding a debt nondischargeable under section 523(a)(2)(A).  Taking the plaintiff's well-pled allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appeared to the Court that the plaintiff could establish the elements necessary for a finding of nondischargeability.

Crockett v. ECMC (In re Lucas) (Case No. 79-00018; A.P. No. 07-06058) 07/21/2008

The court held that student loans are non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) if the petition was filed on or after August 14, 1979 and that student loans are non-dischargeable under 20 U.S.C. § 1087-3 if the petition was filed before November 6, 1978, unless the court finds that failure to permit such a discharge would impose an undue hardship on the debtor or the debt was more than five years old on the date of discharge, and student loans are dischargeable if the petition was filed between the two aforementioned dates because no statute existed providing that student loans were non-dischargeable during such time.

Pages

View all »