You are here



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.

Callahan, Jr., Trustee v. Lambert (In re Lambert Oil Co., Inc.) (Case No. 03-01183; A.P. No. 05-07040) 02/16/2006

The court held that a loan made by the Debtor corporation to its sole shareholder for the purpose of acquiring another corporation, which was merged into the Debtor, was a personal loan.  The sole shareholder also owed pre-judgment interest on the amount owed to the Debtor from the time the Debtor became insolvent.  The sole shareholder could, however, setoff his right to reimbursement for partial payment on a debt he guaranteed for the Debtor. 

Wolfe v. Middleton (In re Middleton) (Case No. 04-01475; A.P. No. 05-05015) 2/14/2006

The Chapter 7 Trustee filed a Complaint to avoid the debtor's prepetition conversion of cash into a Roth IRA and life insurance policy as a fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1).  The Court held that the debtor's use of cash to purchase the IRS and life insurance policy constituted a "transfer" or property within the scope of Section 548 because the debtor's interest in the property changed.  However, the Court did not address the ultimate question of whether the debtor's admitted intent to convert the non-exempt cash into exempt property is sufficient evidence for the trustee to prevail, and continued that issue for a future hearing.