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 Wiencko (Case No. 01-05219) 06/08/2005

This Opinion references two cases -- the above-captioned case as well as In re Shaw, Case No. 01-05217.  The Debtors requested an evidentiary hearing on their claim objection on the basis that this Court needs to take additional evidence as it relates to a Pennsylvania state court judgment which forms the basis for the creditor's claim in order for the Court to be able to properly determine whether the claim falls into any of the subparagraphs of 11 U.S.C. § 506(b), which would result in disallowance of the limitation of the amount of the claim.  The Debtors essentially want this Court to re-characterize the Pennsylvania state court judgment order by introducing additional evidence.  The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine precludes the Court from holding an evidentiary hearing to examine whether the Pennsylvania Court's judgment was based upon an employment contract when the judgment denotes it was based upon a shareholder minority oppression claim.  See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).  Accordingly, under the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to receive and consider extrinsic evidence pertaining to the Pennsylvania state court judgment.

Active Wear, Inc. v. ML Industries, Inc. (In re Active Wear, Inc.) (Case No. 04-01780; A.P. No. 04-00055) 06/07/2005

The court approved a proposed settlement regarding accounts receivable owed to the Debtor after determining that the settlement was in the best interest of the creditors and that it fell well above the bottom range of outcomes that would be considered reasonable.  However, the release provided to an insider of both parties for guaranteeing the payment was conditioned on the Debtor actually being paid in accordance with the settlement terms. 

In re Wells (Case No. 05-70933) 5/27/2005

Motion for relief denied for failure to file certification in compliance with Court's standard pre-hearing order.  Motion to avoid lien on vehicle denied for lack of legal foundation:  exemption under Va. Code section 34-26(8) not properly claimed as creditor had perfected security interest; exemption under Va. Code section 34-4 not properly claimed as homestead deed not timely filed; and insufficient proof offered to show that vehicle was necessary for debtor's occupation to support exemption under Va. Code section 34-26(7).

Chelstrom v. Fabriko Acquisition Corp., Inc., et al. (In re Boss Mgmt. Group, Inc.) (Case No. 05-61589; A.P. No. 05-06041) 05/13/2005

A party may remove any claim or cause of action to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 1334.  28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).  In this case, the Notice of Removal was filed in the wrong district, so the Court remanded this case.

Pages