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.

Haertsch v. Moyer (In re Moyer) (Case No. 06-50080; A.P. No. 06-05020) 1/29/2007

A pro se plaintiff moved the Court for a finding that debt owed to him was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), and the debtor filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff's complaint was untimely pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007.  Rule 4007(c) requires that a complaint under Section 523 “be filed not later than 60 days following the first date set for the meeting of creditors held pursuant to § 341(a).”  The plaintiff filed the objection to discharge in the form of a 1-page letter prior to the bar date.  The plaintiff then filed an "Amended Complaint" which was not docketed until after the bar date.  The debtor argues that the plaintiff's 1-page letter was not a "complaint," and thus, not a pleading under Rule 7007, which would mean that the subsequent "Amended Complaint" was not an "amendment" at all, but an original pleading which was filed after the bar date.  The Court found that the plaintiff's Amended Complaint was not time barred because amendment was not prejudicial to debtor, who was aware of the facts alleged, and because bad faith was not present when the pro se plaintiff amended his complaint to put the case in proper form and substance for adjudication.

Fuller v. The Sallie May Fund, Inc. (In re Fuller) (Case No. 05-64905; A.P. No. 06-06017) 01/17/2007

The Court held that debtor's debts owed to creditor arising from loans made for the purpose of permitting debtor to attend an institution or institutions of higher learning are dischargeable, notwithstanding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), because debtor met her burden under the undue-hardship test stated in Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395, 396 (2d. Cir. 1987) and adopted by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Frushour (In re Frushour), 433 F.3d 393, 400 (4th Cir. 2005).

Fuller v. Federal Direct Loan Program (In re Fuller) (Case No. 05-64905; A.P. 06-06018) 01/17/2007

The Court held that debtor's debts owed to creditor arising from loans made for the purpose of permitting debtor to attend an institution or institutions of higher learning are dischargeable, notwithstanding 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), because debtor met her burden under the undue-hardship test stated in Brunner v. New York State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395, 396 (2d. Cir. 1987) and adopted by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Frushour (In re Frushour), 433 F.3d 393, 400 (4th Cir. 2005).

National Emergency Servs. v. Williams (In re R.J. Reynolds - Patrick Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., Inc.) (Case No. 03-01297; A.P. 06-06082A) 01/16/2007

The Court dismissed an adversary proceeding concerning equitable subordination of a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 510(c) because the parent case will be dismissed and the plaintiff will obtain no relief even if it prevails to the fullest extent of its prayer for relief.

In re Harris (Case No. 06-70538); In re Jarrell (Case No. 06-71129) 01/12/2007

The Court confirmed the debtors' Chapter 13 plans because (1) at least in cases in which no contrary position is asserted by some party in interest, 11 U.S.C. § 1325 (a)(5)(B)(iii) does not preclude the continuation of adequate protection payments post-confirmation until all administrative expenses have been paid in full, (2) interest begins to accrue on the secured loan balance on the date of confirmation, and (3) based on 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I) and (II), non-bankruptcy law (rather than plan provisions) controls how post-confirmation payments are applied to secured loan balances.

McDow v. Gammons (In re Gammons) (Case No. 05-64019; A.P. No. 06-06058) 01/05/2007

The Court denied the United States Trustee’s complaint seeking to revoke debtors’ discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) because (1) the party (an anonymous creditor) requesting the revocation of such discharge was clearly aware of the facts that gave rise to the alleged fraud before the discharge was granted and (2) the United States Trustee failed to prove all of the elements of fraud because debtors did not intend to deceive by not including certain income on their schedules.

Pages

View all »