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 Conner (Case No. 09-50314) 6/29/2009

Debtor failed to timely record her homestead deed, therefore the Court sustained trustee's objection to the debtor's claimed homestead exemption.  The debtor's 341 meeting concluded on April 7, 2009 and was not adjourned to a later date.  The fact that the trustee issued a notice of assets on June 10, 2009 was immaterial. Because Virginia law includes weekends in computing the five day post section 341 meeting period, the period in the case ended on August 12, 2009.  The debtor recorded her homestead deed on April 15, 2009.  Thus, the debtor failed to timely record her homestead deed pursuant to Virginia Code section 34-17.

Noren v. Brown (In re Noren) (Case No. 08-72242; A.P. No. 09-07009) 06/17/09

Debtor filed a motion for default judgment to discharge a judgment obligation. The defendant failed to file any responsive pleading. The Court considered when or whether a Court should grant perhaps unwarranted relief sought in a duly served complaint to which no defense or objection was filed by the defendant. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A), the Court held that the debt the debtor sought to avoid was a domestic support obligation.

Noren v. Brown (In re Noren) (Case No. 08-72242; A.P. No. 09-07009) 06/17/09

Debtor filed a motion for judgment to discharge a judgment obligation. The defendant failed to file any responsive pleading. The Court considered when or whether a Court should grant perhaps unwarranted relief sought in a duly served complaint to which no defense or objection was filed by the defendant. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A), the Court held that the debt the debtor sought to avoid was a domestic support obligation. Pursuant 523(a)(5), the Court held that a discharge in a chapter 7 bankruptcy does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt for a domestic support obligation.

In re Dudley (Case No. 08-71561) 6/15/2009

The United States Trustee filed a motion to dismiss this chapter 7 case pursuant to section 707(b)(1).  The debtors argued that 707(b) does not apply to cases converted to chapter 7 from another chapter of the Bankruptcy Code and moved for summary judgment on that ground.  The Court granted the debtors' motion for summary judgment and held that the plain meaning rule dictated that 707(b) applies only to cases filed under chapter 7 and that cases converted to chapter 7 from another chapter do not fall within the scope of 707(b). Literal application of the statutory language did not result in an outcome that could be characterized as absurd and did not produce an outcome demonstrably at odds with clearly expressed congressional intent.

In re Borgens (Case No. 04-00492) 06/09/2009

The Court, on the creditor's first notice of default and notice of termination of automatic stay, found that the debtor was in default of her regular payment obligations under the loan.  Therefore, under the terms of the consent order, the creditor was entitled to relief.  However, the debtor sought an equitable modification of the consent order requesting time to either refinance or sell the property.  The creditor did not specifically object to an equitable modification.  Relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), incorporated into Bankruptcy Rule 9024, and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), as the debtor lost her job (an unanticipated substantial change in circumstances) and because of the large amount of equity existing in the property, the court found that it would be an abuse of process to allow the creditor to immediately foreclose on the property.  Therefore, the court granted deferred relief to the creditor -- relief not effective until expiration of three months and only then if the creditor was not paid in full by that date.

In re Belcher (Case No. 06-72448) 06/02/09

The Debtors motioned for Final Decree. The Debtors subsequently motioned for the entry of an order granting discharge, and in the alternative, waiving the quarterly fee. The Court held that Congress did not intent to provide additional discretion to bankruptcy courts to grant an early discharge once the creditors had received at least as much as they would have received in a chapter 7 liquidation case and that unless the modification of the plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1127(e) would not be practicable within the meaning of §1141(d)(5)(B)(ii).

In re Lester (Case No. 09-70048) 05/04/09

Debtor filed a motion to convert from chapter 13 to chapter 11. Grundy National Bank objected. Debtors filed this adversary proceeding to prevent an allegedly fraudulent transfer induced by the bank and the recovery of money and property transferred in accordance therewith. Grundy asserts that the motion to convert was not filed in good faith. The Court noted that the case law on the issue was sparse and that the Court has discretion whether to grant or deny a motion to convert to chapter 11.

In re Turner (Case No. 08-60030) 03/17/2009

The Court denied the United States Trustee's motion to dismiss the case under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(1) & (3). The Court considered whether it would be an abuse of the provisions of chapter 7 to allow the debtors to continue prosecuting their case under chapter 7. After considering the debtors' disoposable income and the deductions reasonably necessary for their support, the court held that it would not be an abuse of the provisions of chapter 7 for the debtors to prosecute this case under chapter 7.

Pages

View all »