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.

Sexton v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Sexton) (Case No. 13-70230; A.P. No. 13-07037) 04/01/02014

The debtor filed a complaint to enforce the automatic stay against the Internal Revenue Service.  The IRS filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The main question the court had to answer was whether the government’s post-petition setoff of the debtor’s tax refund to satisfy a non-tax debt is a violation of the automatic stay.  The Court found that that the government’s actions of intercepting and withholding the debtor’s tax overpayment violated the automatic stay.  Accordingly, the Court denied the motions to dismiss and granted the relief requested by the debtor in her action to enforce the automatic stay.

In re Roberts (Case No. 10-51861) 04/01/2013

Pro se debtor filed a motion to reopen her bankruptcy case.  The court construed the motion as a motion to reopen to determine if a bank’s post-discharge actions involving a deed and trustee’s sale had violated the discharge injunction.  The court determined that in the event that the bank did not currently hold and  did not hold a perfected secured claim at the time of the discharge, any action taken by them to collect on a debt discharged under the debtor’s bankruptcy would potentially be a violation of the discharge injunction.  Therefore, the court found that cause existed to grant the debtor’s motion to reopen her bankruptcy case to determine if the bank’s actions had violated the discharge injunction.

Am. Southern Ins. Co. v. Rutherford (In re Rutherford) (Case No. 12-51445; A.P. No. 13-05013) 3/31/2014

Upon American Southern Insurance Company's motion to determine its debt non-dischargeable under Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(2)(B), the Court granted the Rutherford's motion for summary judgment, finding that American Southern could not have relied upon the Rutherford's allegedly misleading Financial Statements, because it issued the bond rider prior to receiving the writing.  Accordingly, the Court held American Southern could not establish reliance upon such writing and it could not prevail on its non-dischargeability claim for fraud under the Code.

In re Tomer (Case No. 08-61265) 3/14/2014

The Court denied the movant's request for the debtor to produce prior years' tax returns and income and expediture statements, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 521(f).  Ultimately, the Court held that the movant had not made a sufficient showing that it could not obtain this information through other means or that there was a need for the information to aid in the administration of the case, especially in light of the fact the debtor had already completed all plan payments and the case almost closed.  To warrant such production of confidential information, the movant must first prove a need that outweighs the debtor's right to privacy.

In re Cassell (Case No. 13-71980) 03/14/14

The creditor, whose claim was secured by a vehicle, filed an objection to confirmation of a proposed chapter 13 plan.  The court considered whether the plan complied with 11 U.S.C. § 1325 and may be confirmed or whether the creditor’s objection should be sustained due to the fact that the plan listed an amount in paragraph 3(D) that was less than the actual debt resulting in an impermissible cram down.  The court concluded that the plan language was clear in that the trustee would commence payments to the holder of each allowed secured claim listed in paragraph 3(D) on the balance owed or the amount specified in paragraph 3(A), whichever is less, until the amount was paid in full.  There was no amount listed in 3(A).  The court thus overruled the creditor’s objection and confirmed the plan.

In re Turner-Williams (Case No. 13-51463) 2/4/2014

Court ruled that debtor who failed to complete credit counseling under Bankruptcy Code § 109(h) was not eligible to be a debtor.  Without a showing of deferment or exigent circumstances, the Court could not authorize the debtor to file certification of completion after petitioning for bankruptcy protection, even if she filed the certificate only eight days after filing the petition.

Lewis v. Long (In re Long) (Case No. 13-60044; A.P. No. 13-06030) 1/28/2014

Court held that claimant had not carried her burden of proving debtor's debt he owed to her was the result of a "willful and malicious injury," when the claimant produced no evidence at trial other than the existence of a default judgment from the state court.  The Court held that without at least some showing of intent, which the claimant asserted she did not need to provide because of the state court's default judgment, the Court could not find that the claimant had proven the debtor intended to cause the harm leading to the debt under Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(6).  Of particular importance to the Court was the fact that the underlying state-court action (carnal knowledge of a minor) did not require the state court to find any intentional wrongdoing on the part of the debtor, so the default judgment alone failed to prove any intent to inflict injury, let alone a "willful and malicious" infliction of injury.

In re Brown (Case No. 13-70356) 01/24/2014

            The United States Trustee filed a motion for an order requiring an alleged bankruptcy petition preparer to disgorge fees received from the debtor, pay damages to the debtor, and be fined for each violation of section 110 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The court found that Mr. Jennings had functioned as an undisclosed bankruptcy petition preparer.  The court determined that the $2,000 amount set forth in section 110(i)(1)(B)(i) was applicable.  The court also imposed a fine of $500 because the failure to disclose was intentional; such amount was tripled pursuant to section 110(b)(2) and paid to the Office of the United States Trustee pursuant to section 110(l)(4)(A).

Pages

View all »