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 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.

In re Meadows (Case No. 06-62050) 02/20/2009

The debtors objected to a proof of claim on the grounds that it failed to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a) and (c) and did not include the original or duplicate writing, or explanation of the loss thereof, upon which the claim was based.  The debtors did not, however, disagree with the amount owed.  A proof of claim is presumed to be prima facie valid. The presumption may be overcome only if the objecting party offers evidence of equally probative value in rebuttal.  The burden then shifts back to the claimant to produce evidence meeting the objections and establishing the claim.    As the debtors did not provide any evidence that the proof of claim was invalid as to amount or character, there was no controversy before the court and the court overruled the objection. 

In re Harrington (Case No. 08-70439) 02/17/09

United States Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the case under 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(1) on the grounds that the petition was an abusive filing. The 2005 Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code eliminated the requirement that the Court find a substantial abuse and also eliminated the prior presumption in favor of granting Chapter 7 relief. The Court found that a presumption of abuse did arise pursuant to § 707(b)(2). Further, even if no presumption of abuse arose, the Court found that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated abuse pursuant to § 707(b)(3).

In re White (Case No. 08-71107) 01/22/09

Creditor Wells Fargo Bank filed a motion for relief with regard to a deed of trust upon the Debtor’s residential property. Both parties failed to comply with pre-hearing orders of the Court. Accordingly, the Court declined to rule upon the motion for relief. The Court ordered the Creditor to file a completed certification form. The Court ordered the Debtor to file a response to the certification.

In re Mack (Case No. 08-72445) 01/14/09

Debtor sought the Court to enter a wage deduction order directing her employer to withhold and remit a portion of her wages to fulfill her obligation to a mortgage company. The language and statutory constructions of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(c) grant the Court the power to order a debtor’s employer to direct part of the debtor’s wages only to the Trustee, not to secured creditors. Such an order in this case was also not appropriate under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Accordingly, the Court denied the entry of the proposed wage order.

In re White (Case No. 08-71107) 12/15/2008

The Court held that the movants have the initial burden of demonstrating an appropriate basis for relief regarding their motion for relief from the automatic stay "for cause" under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1), and that once such burden has been met, the ultimate burden of proof rests upon the debtor to show a lack of cause to grant such motion.  Further, the Court held that, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5), personal injury tort bankruptcy claims must be tried in the district court rather than in the bankruptcy court, even though such claims, if successful, will be claims against the bankruptcy estate.  The Court also held that personal injury tort claims can involve invasions of personal rights and that such claims are not limited to actual physical injury.  Finally, after considering congressional intent and the factors in Robbins v. Robbins (In re Robbins), 964 F.2d 342 (4th Cir. 1992), the Court granted the movants' motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow the movants to amend their complaint in a dischargeability adversary proceeding to include their underlying claims against debtor, the allegations which support those claims, and the allegations which support the non-dischargeability of such claims, and to seek an order in district court that such adversary proceeding be tried in the district court for the district in which such claims arose.

Pages

View all »