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 Renier (Case No. 07-61602) 03/21/2011

            The debtor had filed a motion seeking sanctions for violation of the automatic stay.  Prior to the Court taking the matter under submission, the parties appeared and represented that they had reached an agreement and would submit a consent order, which was entered on the docket.  The consent order prohibited the parties from engaging in certain acts and contained a provision for liquidated damages in the amount of $30,000 for violation of the order.  Subsequently, the debtor filed a motion to enforce a consent order.  The Court, however, concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the initial motion which gave rise to the consent order and that it therefore did not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion to enforce.  The Court vacated the consent order and dismissed the motion to enforce for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In re Reynolds (Case No. 09-71964) 2/25/2011

Injunction motion denied as much of the relief sought had already been rendered moot by this Court's prior decision and order and remaining relief sought was not available pursuant to a Rule 9014 motion and ought to be advanced as adversary proceeding.  Rule 4008(a) does not authorize the Court to enlarge the time to file a reaffirmation agreement subsequent to a discharge having been granted when no request for such enlargement was made prior to entry of the discharge order.

In re Reynolds (Case No. 09-71964) 02/10/2011

            After the debtor had received a discharge, Wells Fargo filed a motion for relief from stay as to certain property of the estate, alleging $14,000 of default on the loan secured by the property.  At the time debtor filed his petition, the property was held by the debtor as the trustee of a trust established by his father.  The debtor’s father died and, pursuant to the trust instrument, a 50% share of the trust was distributed to the debtor.  The debtor opposed the motion for relief, but the trustee did not file a response.  The Court ruled that the debtor lacked standing since the property was property of the chapter 7 estate and the trustee had not yet abandoned the property.  The Court found cause to grant relief from stay.

Hines v. Wolfe (In re Stillwater, Inc.) (Case No. 04-01023) 1/25/2011

The Treasurer of Rockbridge County, Virginia filed an Application for Administrative Expenses, seeking that the value of the real estate taxes that have accrued for 2004-2010 be paid as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B).  The Court held that only a portion of the accrued real property taxes were allowed as an administrative expense under Section 503(b)(1)(B) because only taxes attaching to the property after the creation of the estate can be assessed against the estate as an administrative expense.  Therefore, the real property taxes on the real property held by the estate for the years 2005-2010 constitute administrative expenses under Section 503(b)(1)(B), but the real property taxes assessed for 2004 does not because the real property was owned by the pre-petition debtor and not the estate as of January 1, 2004, the time the taxes for that year were incurred.

Marsh v. Campbell (In re Campbell) (Case No. 10-60197; A.P. No. 10-06053) 11/17/2010

The Court analyzed the twelve factors set forth in Eastport Assocs. v. City of Los Angeles, 935 F.2d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 1991), and determined that abstention is warranted in this case because the parties litigated the matter in the state court for more than seven months before the petition was filed and because all of the causes of action, other than the dischargeability cause of action, are based exclusively on state law.  Accordingly, the Court granted the motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow the parties to continue to litigate this matter in state court.

In re Brown (Case No. 04-00291) 11/12/2010

In this pre-BAPCPA case, the Court denied the debtor's request to reopen his case for the purpose of adding a creditor not included in his original schedules. Because the effect of the discharge on the child support obligation was not certain under Section 523, the Court denied the motion without prejudice to the right of either the debtor or the creditor to file a motion to reopen the case for the purpose of filing a complaint to initiate an adversary proceeding to obtain a determination of the dischargeability of the obligation.  The Court's decision has no effect upon the non-bankruptcy issue of whether the support obligation remains enforceable as a matter of state law under Va. Code Section 8.01-251(A).

Pages

View all »