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 Mary Adams (Case No. 09-7001) 03/05/12

Where debtor's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel but previously initiated two adversary proceedings in this case which were still left to be litigated, the Court allowed counsel to withdraw on the condition that counsel remain as a special bankruptcy counsel to the debtor to make arguments on her behalf at hearings, or in adversary proceedings related to this case, about the proper interpretation and application of governing bankruptcy law, or to assist her new general bankruptcy counsel, if any, in doing so until this case is concluded.

In re Adams (Case No. 09-70001) 3/5/2012

Debtor’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel under Local Rule 2091-1 citing a possible conflict between his professional duties to his client and his responsibilities as an officer of the Court.  The court granted the motion, subject to limitations.  Debtor’s counsel was required to remain as special bankruptcy counsel to the Debtor to make arguments on her behalf about the proper interpretation and application of applicable bankruptcy law or to assist her new bankruptcy counsel, if any, in doing so as necessary, or until the case has concluded or the Debtor notifies him of her desire to terminate his continued limited representation.

In re Lane (Case No. 11-71402) 03/02/2012

Court determined that the debtor’s chapter 13 plan was not proposed in good faith as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and § 1325(a)(7) and was, in fact, filed with the intention to have his equitable distribution obligations to his ex-wife minimized to the extent they could not be avoided.  The court sustained the objection to confirmation of debtor’s proposed plan but also sustained debtor’s objection to the creditor/ex-wife’s proof of claim that his court-ordered obligations to her should have priority, finding that the debt was not classifiable as a domestic support obligation as defined in § 101(14A).

Fay et al v. StellarOne Bank (In re Fay) (Case No. 11-61498-LYN; A.P. No. 11-06067) 02/28/12

Debtors sought to avoid the lien of StellarOne Bank. StellarOne opposed the complaint. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) states that a chapter 13 may modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in the real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.  Case law provided that a chapter 13 debtor may avoid a wholly unsecured lien on his residence of a second deed of trust if the amount of the first deed of trust is greater than the fair market value of the property. The parties disagreed as to the fair market value of the Subject property.

In re Tool Engineering & Machining Co., LLC (Case No. 10-63675-LYN) 02/27/12

Creditor motioned to dismiss the case. The debtor opposed the motion. The debtor violated 11 U.S.C. 1121(e)(2) by waiting too long to file a plan without filing a motion to extend the time to file a plan. The two exceptions to mandatory dismissal or conversion did not apply. There was no reason to convert the case rather than dismiss it. Therefore, the case was dismissed.

In re Barry Meade Homes, LLC (Case No. 10-61301) 2/27/2012

Creditor filed an amended proof of claim for a deficiency after the bar date, and objected to Trustee's Final Report because it did not provide for its unsecured deficiency claim.  Court held that although the creditor did not timely file its deficiency claim, untimely amended claims may be allowed if the trustee has sufficient notice of the claim and the trustee has not yet made a distribution to creditors.  Court found that under the circumstances of this case, the creditor's delay in filing the deficiency claim was justified; accordingly, the Court allowed the creditor's deficiency claim.

Goldstein v. PHC-Martinsville, Inc. (In re Huffman) (Case No. 09-60343; A.P. No 11-06095) 02/10/2012

The debtor allegedly sustained an injury in a hospital, and she filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy but did not schedule the claim and eventually received a discharge.  The chapter 7 trustee brought the personal injury action in the reopened bankruptcy case.  The defendant, which was the owner of the hospital, filed two motions, one to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and one to abstain pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) from hearing the matter in the federal courts.  The court denied both motions.

Gavin et al v. McGowan (In re Gavin) (Case No. 10-62822-LYN; A.P. No. 11-06071) 01/30/12

Debtors’ objected to the claim of a creditor. The court noted that, to prove a claim, a creditor must present evidence that is greater is weight than the evidence presented by the debtor. The creditor made a number of claims for which he requested compensation, however, he did not provide adequate evidence for any of them. Accordingly, the Court sustained the Debtors’ objection.

Pearson v. Bank of America et al (In re Pearson) (Case No. 11-60579-LYN) (A.P. No. 11-06116) 01/27/12

Debtor filed a motion against Bank of America seeking damages for violation of the discharge injunction and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. First, precedent provided that the plaintiff had to prove that the defendant willfully violated the discharge injunction. The language of the letter the defendant sent to the plaintiff could not be construed as an attempt at collection. Accordingly, the Court held that the defendant did not violate discharge injunction.

Anderson v. Bank of America (In re Anderson) (Case No. 10-60510; A.P. No. 11-06117) 01/27/2012

Debtors sought damages for violation of the discharge injunction and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. First, precedent provided that the court may hold parties in contempt for willfully failing to comply with a previous order. The letter sent to the debtors contained language which made it clear that it was not an attempt to collection. Accordingly, the Court held that the defendants did not violate the discharge injunction.

Pages

View all »