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.

Davis v. ABN AMRO Mortg. Grp.et al. (In re Davis) (Case No. 05-72683; A.P. No. 06-07126) 02/22/2008

The Court granted a motion to dismiss a negligence claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) because, under Virginia law, creditor (a residential mortgage loan servicer) is not subject to any common law duty or fiduciary duty owed to debtors (loan obligors) and instead merely is subject to a contractual duty.  The Court also granted a motion for summary judgment against debtor-wife under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 because debtors' loan is not in debtor-wife's name and therefore creditor could not have been negligent towards her or breached a fiduciary duty owed as to her.  Further, the Court granted creditor's motion for summary judgment with respect to debtor-husband only because any duty owed by creditor is limited to the terms of the loan and debtors did not allege any breach of the terms of the deed of trust.  Lastly, the Court held that debtors’ failure to mention only one of two creditors in relation to breach of contract litigation in their schedules for bankruptcy does not raise any equitable estoppel grounds against the assertion of any claims that may exist as a result of such litigation against either creditor.

Sims v. The Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia (In re Sims) (Case No. 07-60860; A.P. No. 07-06090) 02/11/2008

The court held that creditor's refusal to return wages garnished post-petition pursuant to a pre-petition writ of garnishment constituted a knowing and willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(h) and that debtors are entitled to actual damages in the amount of wages garnished post-petition plus wages lost due to this proceeding, compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages because creditor acted in disregard for the law and for debtors' rights under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

In re Clauden (Case No. 07-61438) 02/05/2008

The Court held that, prior to the date on which collateral is actually surrendered to secured creditor, adequate protection payments made by a debtor to a Chapter 13 trustee under Standing Order #9 and 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1)(C) must be forwarded to the secured creditor because they account for the depreciation of collateral.  The Court also held that a proof of claim that is timely filed must be given effect nunc pro tunc from the filing date unless the Bankruptcy Code or Rules provide otherwise, and that surrender of collateral pursuant to a plan does not extinguish a secured claim prior to the surrender of the collateral.

General Creations, LLC v. Callahan (In re General Creations, LLC) (Case No. 03-03058; A.P. No. 06-07095) 1/3/2008

Two toy designers ("Designers") brought an adversary proceeding against the Chapter 7 trustee for recovery of money owed to them after the debtor violated a licensing agreement and manufactured and sold toys designed by the Designers without the Designers' knowledge or consent.  The Court, applying the analysis set forth in Capital Investors Co. v. Morrison, 800 F.2d 424 (4th Cir. 1986), awarded the Designers royalties plus the profits the debtor made from the toys.  Accordingly, the Court held that the value of the constructive trust is not property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(d).

In re Shifflet (Case No. 05-50345) 12/14/2007

The debtors filed an application for a hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) and (c).  After confirmation of the debtors' Chapter 13 plan, the female debtor was diagnosed with a rare, chronic autoimmune neuromuscular disease which caused her to quit her job due to the resulting muscle weakness.  Under Section 1328(b), Chapter 13 debtors can obtain a discharge after confirmation even though complete payments under the plan have not been made, so long as the debtors show that the following three essential criteria are satisfied: (1) the failure to complete plan payments is due to circumstances for which the debtors cannot justly be held accountable; (2) the value of property distributed under the plan on account of each allowed unsecured claim is not less than the amount that would have been paid on such claim if the estate of the debtor had been liquidated under chapter 7 of this title on such date; and (3) modification of the plan is not practicable.  See 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)(1)-(3).  The Court denied the debtors' application for a hardship discharge, holding that although the female debtor's illness was an unforeseeable economic circumstance, the debtors have failed to establish that they have made every effort to overcome their situation by failing to present evidence that would preclude the possibility of improvement in the female debtor’s health or the possibility of finding suitable alternative employment.

Pages