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 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 Wood (Case No. 10-61852) 12/21/2011

            Pre-petition, the debtor leased retail space to operate a restaurant through a limited liability company.  The debtor and the LLC also executed an unsecured note in consideration for the purchase of equipment to be used in the restaurant’s operations.  The lessor filed a complaint in state court and obtained a judgment based on the note obligation in the approximate amount of $15,000; the judgment was recorded at a time when neither the debtor nor the LLC owned real property in the county.  The debtor filed a chapter 7 petition and eventually obtained a discharge, notice of which was sent to all the defendants.

            Post-petition, the debtor received a letter seeking to collect a debt arising from the note judgment.  Subsequently, the debtor and the LLC were also served with a summons to answer interrogatories.  The debtor asserts that he was “badgered” for forty-five minutes about his personal financial condition when he declined to answer certain questions.  The parties appeared in state court on the interrogatories, which was eventually dismissed by the Albemarle County Judge.  Nothing in the record indicated that the defendants continued collection efforts after the dismissal.

            The debtor then filed a motion seeking compensatory and punitive damages for violation of the discharge injunction.  The Court found that the actions clearly violated the discharge injunction and that the defendants knew that the discharge injunction was invoked, particularly given that the collection efforts continued even after being informed of the application of discharge injunction.  The Court determined that sanctions were appropriate, but only in an amount necessary to deter future violations taking into account that this was the first time these defendants were before the Court on such charges and that the parties could have brought the dispute to an end long before bringing it before the Court.

 

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 Lambert Oil Company, Inc. (Case No. 03-01183) 11/28/2007

Court denied, without prejudice to the filing of a supplemental application, the third interim application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses of the trustee's attorney. It is within Court's sound discretion to decline to award compensation until all relevant circumstances and factors affecting the determination of fair and reasonable compensation for the attorney are known.  Court also questioned the firm's entitlement to any compensation for litigation in light of the failure of the trustee to seek approval of the Court for the firm's retention to provide such services.

Pages

View all »