In re Wolfe (Case No. 05-74781) 02/13/2006
The court ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the Debtors' interest in real property when the Debtors filed bankruptcy after a foreclosure sale but before a memorandum of sale was prepared.
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.
Brandon, et al. v. Conseco Finance Serv. Corp. (In re Brandon) (Case No. 05-61502; A.P. No. 05-06062) 02/13/2006
The Court declared a wholly unsecured second lien on the Chapter 13 Debtor's real property an unsecured claim for the pendency of the case, but declined to declare the lien void until Debtor recieved discharge.
Callahan, Jr., Trustee v. Petro Stopping Center No. 72 (In re Lambert Oil Co., Inc.) (Case No. 03-01183; A.P. No. 05-07043) 02/09/2006
The court denied a motion to alter or amend its previous decision holding that payments were not substantially contemporaneous so as to be sheltered from avoidance by 11 U.S.C. section 547(c)(1).
In re De La Rocha (Case No. 05-75803) 01/26/2006
The court dismissed the Debtor's case for failing to show that she requested credit counseling before the petition was filed and that it was unavailable within five days of making the request.
In re Bear Ridge Mining, Inc. (Case No. 00-00708) 1/20/2006
Court held that simply because all creditors had not been paid is not reason by itself to refuse to enter a final decree when substantial distributions to creditors have commenced. Court granted the debtor's final report and application for final decree under Rule 3022.
In re Lopez (Case No. 05-71778) 01/13/2006
The court held that the Virginia law in effect on the filing date established the deadline for recording a homestead deed, so the Debtors' homestead dead was untimely filed.
Frazier v. U.S. Dep't of Education (In re Frazier) (Case No. 04-74946; A.P. No. 05-07015) 1/10/2006
Debtor sought discharge of educational loan debt on grounds of undue hardship. Court denied the Department of Education's motion to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) asserting the debtor's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Given the absence of a statutory provision requiring the debtor to exhaust administrative rememdies before seeking discharge and the specific inclusion in the Code of a provision allowing for bankruptcy discharge in limited circumstances, Court had jurisdiction to determine whether payment of student loan debt would constitute an undue hardship on the debtor under section 523(a)(8) even when the debtor has not exhausted all possible administrative options for the deferral or discharge of the obligation. Any such failure to pursue administrative remedies must be considered in the context of applying the Brunner test.
In re Alston (Case No. 05-75852) 01/06/2006
The court dismissed the Debtor's case because he failed to obtain credit counseling in the 180 days prior to filing.
In re Thomason (Case No. 05-75810) 01/06/2006
The court dismissed the Debtor's case because she failed to obtain credit counseling in the 180 days prior to filing and failed to file required schedules.
In re Washer (Case No. 05-73465) 12/30/2005
Court denied creditor's motion to rescind discharge order for the purpose of filing reaffirmation agreement under section 524. Absent evidence of fraud or misconduct on the part of the debtor sufficient to satisfy section 727(d) or some showing that discharge order was mistakenly entered, Court cannot rescind the discharge order.