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 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.

In re Blanch II (Case No. 12-61657) 2/4/2013

Creditor objected to the debtors' claims of exemption based on the debtors' failure to include certain property in their bankruptcy schedules.  Court held that a debtor's failure to schedule property does not give rise to an objection to a claim of exemption.  Further, a determination by the Chapter 7 Trustee that the case was a no asset case rendered moot any objections to the claims of exemptions.

In re Mitchell (Case No. 12-70856) 01/30/2013

            The chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to dismiss the debtor’s case or to convert it to a chapter 7 case on the ground that the amount of the debtor’s unsecured, liquidated and noncontingent debt on the date the case was filed makes her ineligible to proceed under chapter 13.  Reviewing the debtor’s original schedules and the debtor’s amended schedules, the Court found the unsecured debt to exceed the statutory limits of 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).  The Court thus granted the trustee’s motion to dismiss but stayed the ruling for fourteen days to permit the debtor to convert.

In re Grayson (Case No. 12-71908) 01/25/2013

The debtors requested a temporary waiver of the requirements to obtain credit counseling based on exigent circumstances as the male debtor was seriously ill and the female debtor was required to render constant care to her husband.  Because the debtors failed to establish either that they obtained approved credit counseling education before filing their petition or made a request to an approved agency for such a course which was not available to them within seven days of making such request, as is explicitly required by § 109(h), they were not eligible to be debtors in the case.  The court further concluded that the provisions of § 109(h)(4) did not permit the court to waive the requirement.

Pages

View all »