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 Allison (Case No. 09-71737) 12.4.2009

Debtor's motion to approve reaffirmation agreement denied under section 524(c), 524(d) and 524(k)(5) as debtor was represented by counsel during the negotiation of the agreement but counsel did not sign certification that in his/her opinion the debtor was able to make the payment despite presumption of undue hardship. If counsel does make certification, presumption of undue hardship rebutted in light of creditor waiving accrual of interest, relatively small monthly payment, financial assistance provided by family member and apparent importance of this matter to the family.

In re Wharton (Case No. 09-61741-LYN) 11/20/09

Debtors sought reconsideration of the order denying their motion to avoid the lien of Beneficial Discount Company of Virginia on the grounds that the Callands property was located outside the City of Danville. The motion was originally brought under 11 U.S.C. §522. The Court determined that the motion was not ripe to the extent that it concerns the Callands property because the property was not located within the City of Danville.

In re Meade (Case No. 08-70942) 11/13/09

United States Trustee filed a motion to dismiss. The Trustee argued that a presumption of abuse arises under 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(2) and alternatively that dismissal was warranted under 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(3). The debtors’ disposable income was above that which is allowed under the code. The debtors had an opportunity to rebut this presumption. They failed to do so satisfactorily. Accordingly, the Court granted the Trustee’s motion to dismiss, however a period of time was set aside in which the Court would allow the debtors to convert to chapter 7.

In re Prestige Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (Case No. 09-71721) 11/03/09

Debtor motioned for the entry of an order compelling Cantrell Auto Sales, Inc. to turnover vehicle titles belonging to the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542(a). Cantrell filed an answer and objection thereto. The Court applied the Pacor test to determine that the contested matter sufficiently related to the bankruptcy case. The Court concluded that the sale of the vehicle did not conflict with state law and that good title superior to the rights of Cantrell was conferred upon the purchaser. The Court entered the requested order.

In re Howard (Case No. 09-71145) 10/13/09

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from stay and co-debtor stay against the Debtor, his wife alleged to be a co-debtor upon the obligation and the Chapter 13 Trustee for the case. The Debtor denied the material allegations of the motion. The Court held that, although dismissing the motion without prejudice would be justified, a better outcome would be to continue the automatic stay until an agreed final hearing date could be set.

Fischer et al v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re Fischer) (Case No. 09-60598-LYN; A.P. No. 09-06048) 10/08/09

Debtors sought to avoid the consensual lien of Wells Fargo Bank under 11 U.S.C. §§ 506(a) and 1322(b)(2) which permit a chapter 13 debtor to modify the rights of holders of claims secured by the debtor’s principal residence only if all other senior liens on the property are greater than the value of the residence. The Court determined that the value of the property was greater than the first priority consensual lien on the property. Therefore, the lien cannot be avoided.

In re Wharton (Case No. 09-61741-LYN) 10/02/09

Debtors sought to avoid the lien of Beneficial Discount Company of Virginia under 11 U.S.C. § 522. The Court examined whether the lien impaired an exemption of property in Danville and Callands under 11 U.S.C. §552(f)(2)(A). The Court determined that the Danville properties were not exempt because joint debtors may not claim property exempt where the property is held as tenants by the entirety and the judgment is against both Debtors.

Brown v. Bradley Law Firm, PC (In re Brown) (Case No. 09-61325-LYN; A.P. No. 09-06051) 10/02/09

Debtor sought to avoid the judgement lien of Bradley Law Firm, P.C under 11 U.S.C. § 506, but the facts pleaded formed the basis for a cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). Debtor owned property to which a consensual lien was attached and to which Bradley Law Firm sought to attach a judgment lien. The liens together exceed the value of the property. The judgment lien impaired the exemption and was voided to the extent of its impairment. The non-impairing amount of the lien was allowed as a secured claim. The impairing amount of the lien was allowed as an unsecured claim.

In re English (Case No. 08-60172) 09/23/2009

The debtors objected to three proofs of claim on the basis that no supporting documentation or evidence of contract was attached and that the debts may be barred by the statute of limitations. In response to the objection, each creditor filed an amended proof of claim attaching a copy of the transaction history of the account.  A proof of claim is presumed to be prima facie valid if supported by documentation as required by Rule 3001(c).  If the creditor files a proof of claim not supported by requisite documentation, the debtor's objection will be deemed to have been filed in bad faith if the debtor has scheduled the debt in an amount equal to or greater than the proof of claim and not marked the claim as disputed or if the debtor has no reason to believe that the basis of the objection is true.  If the proof of claim is supported by the required documentation, the presumption of validity may be overcome by the objecting party only if it offers evidence of equally probative value in rebuttal.  The debtors' objection based on no supporting documentation was overruled by the court as the debtors scheduled each of the claims in substantially the same amount as the proofs of claim and did not mark any of the claims disputed on the schedules.  In this case, a writing that included a detailed transaction history over a reasonable period of time was found sufficient to support the proof of claim for an unsecured debt.  As the debtors failed to provide any law or assert any facts to support the statute of limitations defense, the objection on that ground was overruled.

Compton v. Compton (In re Compton) (Case No. 08-72212; A.P. No. 09-07005) 09/16/09

Debtor failed to disclose all property when she attempted to obtain a bankruptcy discharge under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Her brother filed an objection to discharge. The Court then heard an adversary proceeding to determine whether the Debtor was entitled to bankruptcy discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(4)(A). The Court determined that the element of fraudulent intent was not established by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Court held that the Debtor was entitled to bankruptcy discharge.

Pages

View all »